This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Martin Rhodes,
Appellant.
Affirmed
Ramsey County District Court
File No. KX992217
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and
Clayton M, Robinson, Jr., St. Paul City Attorney, Jessica S. McConaughey, Assistant St. Paul City Attorney, Kyle A. Lundgren, Special Assistant St. Paul City Attorney, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Theodora Gaitas, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Presiding Judge, Forsberg,* Judge, and Mulally, Judge.**
TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge
Appellant Martin Rhodes challenges his convictions for violation of an order for protection, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions because appellant believed the order had expired. Because sufficient evidence exists to support the jury verdicts, we affirm.
In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review is limited to carefully reviewing the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jury to reach the verdict that it did. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2dd 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). This court must assume the jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary. State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). We will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude the defendant was guilty of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. 1988).
On May 11, 1998, Martin Rhodes’s wife had an order for protection (OFP) issued against her husband requiring he have no contact with her for one year. Rhodes was present in the courtroom when the order was issued and was served with a copy of the OFP. The OFP was for one year, expiring May 11, 1999.
On April 7, 14, and 19, 1999, Rhodes had contact with his wife by sending flowers, cards and a letter to her at her home. This contact violated the OFP. Rhodes claims he believed the OFP expired April 1, 1999, because that was one year from the date his wife requested the OFP and he understood from speaking to a court clerk that the OFP had expired.
Rhodes was charged with three separate gross misdemeanor counts of violating an order for protection (OFP) under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14 (c) (1998). A jury found Rhodes guilty of all three charges. Rhodes appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because there was no evidence that he intended to violate the OFP.
Rhodes did not object to or appeal the jury instructions in this case, which described the elements of violation of an order for protection. Because the jury found Rhodes guilty, this court assumes that the jury did not believe Rhodes’s testimony that he did not know the order was in effect. See Moore, 438 N.W.2d at 108 (requiring this court to assume jury disbelieved evidence contrary to its verdict). Also, Rhodes was in the courtroom when the order for protection was originally issued and received a copy of the order for protection at that time. Rhodes was also present at the modification hearing on January 11, 1999, and he received a copy of the amended order at that time. There is record evidence that both copies indicated the order for protection prohibited any contact with his wife and expired one year from May 11, 1998. Rhodes admits he sent flowers, cards and a letter to his wife in April 1999. There was sufficient evidence to support Rhodes’s conviction.
Affirmed.