Filed August 29, 2006

Affirmed

Randall, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. DA 291016

Sharon Mae Morrissette, 315 Lowry Avenue North, #1101, Minneapolis, MN 55411 (pro se respondent)

Stephen Aminiel Mrutu, 3433 53rd Avenue North, Apt. 1, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Randall, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

RANDALL, Judge

On appeal from the district court’s grant of an extension of an OFP, pro se appellant-husband argues that the record does not support the district court’s findings that he threatened respondent-wife and violated the OFP. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Stephen Mrutu and respondent Sharon Morrissette were married in October 2002, and divorced in October 2004. While the divorce action was pending, respondent applied for and obtained an order for protection (OFP) against appellant. Respondent subsequently moved to amend the OFP, on two separate occasions. Each motion was granted by the district court.

On August 25, 2005, respondent filed a motion asserting that appellant violated the OFP and requesting an extension of the existing order. Appellant opposed the motion and a trial was held on the matter. At trial, respondent testified that on August 25, 2005, at about 1:00 in the afternoon, appellant confronted her at the Hennepin County Government Center and told her to “get back in his life and get [her] ass back with him.” Respondent also testified that on August 19, 2005, she received a phone call from appellant. According to respondent, appellant stated that: “I thought I told you to get your ass back in my life.” Respondent further testified that since the OFP was ordered, appellant has telephoned her many times threatening to kill her, and that on four separate occasions, appellant drove around her apartment complex shouting that he would kill her.

Appellant testified that he did not confront respondent at the Hennepin County Government Center on August 25. According to appellant, he was at work from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on August 25, and offered his “clock-in and clock-out time card” in support of his assertion. Appellant also denied the allegations that he telephoned respondent and threatened to kill her.

On September 12, 2005, the district court issued its order finding that appellant violated the August 30, 2004 OFP. The district court also granted respondent’s request to extend the OFP until August 30, 2006. This appeal followed.

D E C I S I O N

The district court has discretion to issue an OFP. Chosa v. Tagliente, 693 N.W.2d 487, 489 (Minn. App. 2005). “A district court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous.” Id.; Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. On review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s findings and gives special deference to findings that are made upon conflicting evidence. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. A district court’s factual findings will be reversed only if after reviewing the entire record, the appellate court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Gjovik v. Strope, 401 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Minn. 1987).

Here, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that he violated the existing OFP and that the district court should have denied respondent’s request to extend the OFP. We disagree. At trial, respondent testified that appellant telephoned her on numerous occasions and threatened to kill her. Respondent also testified that on August 25, 2005, appellant confronted her at the Hennepin County Government Center. If accepted, this testimony demonstrates that appellant violated the terms of the August 2004 OFP.

Appellant testified at trial and denied the allegations. Appellant also presented evidence that he was at work on August 25, 2005, at the time that respondent claimed he threatened her at the government center. Although this evidence supports appellant’s claim, the district court questioned appellant concerning the possibility that he could have left work during his shift. Appellant refuted the hypothetical, claiming that there are nurses at his place of employment who supervise him and would have noticed if he left the facility. The district court did not find appellant’s testimony to be that credible. See Vangsness v. Vangsness, 607 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Minn. App. 2000) (stating that appellate courts defer to the district court’s credibility determinations). Besides the August 25, 2005 incident, respondent testified that appellant telephoned her on numerous occasions threatening to kill her. If accepted, this testimony is sufficient to support the district court’s findings that appellant violated the OFP. The district court found respondent’s testimony to be credible. See id.

The record supports the district court’s findings that appellant violated the OFP and to extend the OFP until August 30, 2006.

Affirmed.