Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-12800 No. 6533
10-25-2017
CADE MORGAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF SEWARD, Appellee.
Appearances: Cade Morgan, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant. William A. Earnhart, Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, Anchorage, for the Appellee.
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3SW-16-817 MO
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Seward, George P. Peck, Magistrate Judge. Appearances: Cade Morgan, pro se, Anchorage, Appellant. William A. Earnhart, Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, Anchorage, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Allard and Wollenberg, Judges. Judge ALLARD.
Cade Morgan was convicted of a traffic violation for traveling twenty-five miles per hour over the posted speed limit. On appeal, Morgan argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for this traffic violation. In his brief, Morgan recounts the conflicting evidence in his case, and he makes multiple arguments as to why he was not guilty of the traffic violation.
But when an appellate court reviews a claim of insufficient evidence, we are required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the verdict and to determine whether a fair-minded fact-finder could find the elements of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not determine the credibility of the witnesses or resolve inconsistencies in the evidence — that is for the fact-finder to determine.
We have reviewed the audio record of the bench trial in this case, and we conclude that the conviction was supported by substantial evidence. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
See Ratliff v. State, 798 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Alaska App. 1990) ("[T]he weight and credibility of evidence are matters for the [fact-finder] to consider in reaching a verdict, not for the reviewing court to decide in ruling on the legal sufficiency of the evidence.").