State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Hassan Rostamkhani, Appellant.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (2002).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

C4-02-1208

 

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

 

vs.

 

Hassan Rostamkhani,

Appellant.

 

Filed April 29, 2003

Affirmed

Kalitowski, Judge

 

McLeod County District Court

File No. K001390

 

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103; and

 

Marc A. Sebora, Hutchinson City Attorney, 111 Hassan Street Southeast, Hutchinson, MN 55350 (for respondent)

 

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

 

            Considered and decided by Hudson, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Minge, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

KALITOWSKI, Judge

            Appellant challenges his conviction for violating an order for protection, arguing that there was not sufficient evidence to support the conviction because appellant did not know the victim's new address, and therefore, the victim's testimony that she saw appellant driving in the parking lot of her apartment building was insufficient.  We affirm.

D E C I S I O N

            In 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 the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the fact-finder to reach the verdict that it did.  State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).  An appellate court, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases, will apply the same standard of review to bench trials as is applied to jury trials.  State v. Cox, 278 N.W.2d 62, 65 (Minn. 1979).  The reviewing court must assume the district court believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.  State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).  The reviewing court will not disturb the verdict if the district court, 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.  State v. Alton, 432 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Minn. 1988).

            Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because appellant did not intend to commit an act that violated the order for protection, claiming that he did not know the victim's address.  We disagree. 

            The order for protection prohibited appellant from being within one block of the victim's residence.  The victim testified that she saw appellant's car in the parking lot of her apartment building and that the driver looked like appellant.  The victim also testified that appellant knew her address from prior dissolution proceedings and that she told him of her intention to move into those particular apartments.  Moreover, appellant admitted that he owned the type of vehicle the victim saw in the parking lot.  Appellant denied driving through the parking lot of the victim's apartment, and he testified that he did not know her address.

The district court is in the best position to determine the weight and credibility of individual witnesses.  State v. Bliss, 457 N.W.2d 385, 390 (Minn. 1990).  Here, the district court determined that the victim was the more credible witness and afforded her testimony greater weight.  This determination was within the court's discretion. 

Moreover, in order to support a conviction, identification testimony need not be positive and certain; it is enough for a witness to testify that in her opinion, belief, or judgment, the defendant was the person she saw commit the crime.  State v. Johnson, 568 N.W.2d 426, 435 (Minn. 1997).  The victim testified that she saw appellant's car in the parking lot, and the driver looked like appellant.  Based on this evidence, the court reasonably determined that appellant violated the order for protection.

We have reviewed appellant's pro se brief and determined that his arguments lack merit.  Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the conviction, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support appellant's conviction.

Affirmed.