This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).







State of Minnesota,





Timothy J. Pawlik



Filed August 21, 2007


Ross, Judge


Hennepin County District Court

File No. 05080899



Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and


Jennifer M. Inz, Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd., 1600 Park Building, 650 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent)


Timothy J. Pawlik, 18446 Bearpath Trail, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 (pro se appellant)


Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Harten, Judge.*


U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

ROSS, Judge

Timothy Pawlik appeals his conviction of and fine for petty-misdemeanor speeding.  Pawlik argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because of inconsistencies in the charging officer’s testimony.  Because we conclude that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the conviction, would permit a rational factfinder to conclude that Pawlik exceeded the posted speed limit, we affirm.


While monitoring traffic on Highway 212 in October 2005, Eden Prairie police officer Christopher Millard noticed a vehicle that appeared to exceed the 55 miles-per-hour speed limit.  Officer Millard activated his patrol car’s laser-guided speedometer, which indicated that the target vehicle’s speed was between 76 and 78 miles per hour.  The vehicle slowed noticeably as it approached and passed Officer Millard’s marked patrol car.

Officer Millard stopped the vehicle and identified the driver as Timothy Pawlik.  Pawlik acknowledged the posted speed limit, but he estimated that he was traveling at only 60 miles per hour.  Officer Millard issued Pawlik a speeding citation, carrying a fine of $214.

Following a bench trial at which both Pawlik, who was represented by counsel, and Officer Millard testified, the district court found Pawlik guilty and imposed a reduced fine of $142.  This appeal follows.


We hold that the evidence supports Pawlik’s conviction.  We review a claim of insufficiency of the evidence to determine whether a factfinder could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged in light of the facts in the record and all the legitimate inferences that can be drawn in favor of conviction from those facts.  Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Minn. 1999).  Weassume that the factfinder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contradictory evidence.  State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).  We apply this standard of review for bench trials as well as for jury trials.  Davis, 595 N.W.2d at 525.

Officer Millard testified that he was trained to use the laser-guided speedometer and had performed calibration tests on the instrument on the day he stopped Pawlik.  He found that it was operating properly.  The testimony also established that the manufacturer recently had calibrated and certified the instrument to be functioning properly.  Officer Millard testified that he had a clear, unobstructed view of Pawlik’s car when he pointed the laser-guided speedometer at it, but he admitted that there were several other cars on the roadway near Pawlik’s.  Pawlik admitted that he accelerated to merge onto Highway 212 to avoid missing the exit and that he had not been paying attention to his speed for about one mile after he entered the highway.  Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the conviction, we conclude that a rational factfinder could find that Pawlik exceeded the posted speed limit.

Pawlik identifies inconsistencies in the officer’s testimony.  But on appeal, inconsistencies in the evidence are resolved in favor of the conviction.  State v. Bergeron, 452 N.W.2d 918, 924 (Minn. 1990).  And the alleged inconsistencies are either unsupported by the record or are immaterial to guilt, or both.  Pawlik essentially asks this court to reweigh Officer Millard’s credibility, but this is not a task that we may undertake on appeal.  See State v. Landa, 642 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Minn. 2002) (stating that weighing witness credibility is within province of factfinder).  There is no basis for this court to reverse Pawlik’s conviction.


*   Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.