may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Maynard Wallace Williams,
Filed November 24, 1998
Anoka County District Court
File No. K8976178
Robert M.A. Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Marcy S. Crain, Assistant County Attorney, Anoka County Government Center, 2100 Third Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Ann McCaughan, Assistant Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue, S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Lansing, Judge, and Short, Judge.
A jury convicted Maynard Wallace Williams of theft by wrongfully obtaining re-employment insurance benefits in violation of Minn. Stat. § 268.18, subd. 3(a) (1996) (renumbered as Minn. Stat. § 268.182 in 1997). The trial court stayed imposition of sentence on the condition he serve 30 days in jail, pay $6,060 in restitution, and perform 240 hours of community service under Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 3(2) (1996), and Minn. Stat. § 609.101, subd. 4 (1996), and placed him on probation for 10 years. On appeal, Williams argues the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, the punishment unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct, and the case was racially motivated. We affirm.
Williams argues the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew he did not have the right to collect re-employment benefits at the same time that he received income from part-time work. However, Williams: (1) received re-employment benefits from May 1996 through October 1996 even though he was employed between May 13, 1996 and May 17, 1996, and May 18, 1996 and October 4, 1996; (2) checked the "no" box corresponding to the question of whether he worked at all for wages on each bi-weekly unemployment certification form from May through October, despite attending an orientation session on how to complete the unemployment certification form; and (3) admitted to two investigators that he needed the extra money to support his large family. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assuming the jury believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary, the evidence is sufficient to establish that Williams knew he was not entitled to benefits. See State v. Whisonant, 331 N.W.2d 766, 768 (Minn. 1983) (noting intent is subjective state of mind that is usually established by reasonable inferences drawn from surrounding circumstances); State v. Stender, 354 N.W.2d 890, 891-92 (Minn. App. 1984) (holding circumstantial evidence of intent was sufficient to support conviction when viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict).
After a careful review of the record, we conclude the two additional issues raised in the pro se supplemental brief are without legal or factual support. Under these circumstances, Williams's theft conviction is supported by sufficient evidence.