A05-2514

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Timothy Dale Corbin,

Appellant.

Filed March 20, 2007

Affirmed

Hudson, Judge

Benton County District Court

File No. K2-04-956

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Tibor M. Gallo, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2134; and

Robert Raupp, Benton County Attorney, Courthouse, 615 Highway 23, Foley, Minnesota 56329 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Susan Andrews, Assistant Public Defender, Suite 425, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.

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

HUDSON, Judge

On appeal from a conviction of violation of an order for protection, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Because we conclude that the jury’s verdict is supported by sufficient evidence and that the claims raised in appellant’s pro se supplemental brief are meritless, we affirm.

FACTS

In April 2002, Benton County District Court issued an order for protection (OFP) barring appellant Timothy Corbin from having any contact, direct or indirect, with his ex-wife and their children. In March 2004, Benton County issued an extension of the OFP, which continued its terms until March 2005.

In May 2004, appellant attended his daughter’s high-school graduation ceremony, which took place in the gymnasium of his daughter’s high school. When he arrived, appellant walked past the bleachers where his ex-wife and two of his children were seated and sat several rows behind them. When his daughter received her diploma, appellant left his seat and moved toward the front of the gymnasium, stopping directly next to the row in which his ex-wife and children were seated. After taking a picture of his daughter, appellant made eye contact with his ex-wife as she gestured at him to leave. According to his ex-wife, appellant stood on the bleachers next to them for at least five minutes before he returned to his seat. After the ceremony ended, appellant attempted to take pictures of his youngest daughter, but when his ex-mother-in-law shielded his daughter’s face with a piece of paper, appellant became angry and called her a “bitch.” When appellant’s son and youngest daughter attempted to leave the gymnasium after the ceremony, appellant blocked them by shadowing their movements.

In July 2004, appellant was charged with one count of violating a domestic-abuse order for protection under Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 14(a)(d)(1) (2004). Because appellant had already been convicted four times of violating an OFP, the new offense was tried as a felony. At the time the complaint was filed, appellant was serving a 33-month sentence for first-degree burglary and a 55-month sentence for an attempted first-degree controlled-substance crime. Following a one-day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. In September 2005, appellant was sentenced to one year and one day in jail, to be served consecutively to his previously imposed sentences. This appeal follows.

D E C I S I O N

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of violating the OFP. He argues that there are “serious doubts” as to whether his conduct at his daughter’s graduation constituted a violation of a condition of the OFP. In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant also alleges various due-process and constitutional violations.

When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s review “is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). This court must assume that 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). This is especially true when resolution of the matter depends mainly on conflicting testimony. State v. Pieschke, 295 N.W.2d 580, 584 (Minn. 1980). This court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

Appellant maintains that neither his attendance at his daughter’s high-school graduation nor his attempts to photograph his daughters constitute a violation of the OFP. At trial, appellant testified that “to my understanding, there was no no-contact order, so if there was no no-contact order, I could be in the same public place as my wife and children.” However, the record clearly shows that the OFP in effect at the time of the graduation read, in relevant part: “Respondent shall have no contact, either direct or indirect with Petitioner/child(ren), whether in person, with or through other persons, by telephone, letter, or in any other way . . . .”

Furthermore, appellant admitted that he knew the OFP was in effect at the time he attended his daughter’s graduation and that he knew his ex-wife and children would likely be there. Appellant also admitted that he brought a friend with him to the ceremony and testified that he asked his friend to accompany him because “I wanted to have somebody there with me just in case [my estranged wife] pulled something like this, where, you know, she was going to say that I did something. I wanted to make sure that I had somebody with me that could verify what I did and what I didn’t do.”

Although appellant stated that he did not know that his ex-wife and children were seated directly in front of him until midway through the ceremony, he admitted that he did not change seats or leave the gymnasium when he discovered where they were sitting. Appellant’s ex-wife, his son, and his ex-mother-in-law testified that he remained in the gymnasium after making eye contact with his ex-wife, that he took a picture of his eldest daughter, and that he attempted to take a picture of his youngest daughter. Appellant admitted that he called his ex-mother-in-law a “bitch” when she prevented him from taking a picture of his youngest daughter. Appellant’s son testified that when he and his sister attempted to leave the gymnasium, his father shadowed their movements: “[w]hen we walked to one side of the bleachers, he would walk to the same side and, you know, vice versa.”

After examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that appellant violated the no-contact provision of the OFP.

In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant also argues that his due-process rights have been violated, that he has been deprived of his parental rights, and that the state engaged in malicious prosecution. These arguments fail for the following reasons. First, appellant raises these claims for the first time on appeal. Generally, this court will not consider issues that were not raised before the district court. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996). Second, appellant cites no relevant legal authority and there is no factual basis in the record to support his arguments. Finally, the record shows that appellant had the opportunity to be heard at every stage of the OFP proceedings and that his due-process rights have not been violated.

Affirmed.