"Legislation will fail rational basis review only when it rests on grounds irrelevant to the achievement of a plausible governmental objective." State v. Eakins , 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 2006) (quotation omitted). Although Fletcher claimed only that the amended ordinance violates its substantive-due-process rights under the Minnesota Constitution, and did not raise a claim under the United States Constitution, we note that "[e]ssentially the same analysis and standards apply under the" United States Constitution.
In a court trial without a jury, the court must still provide written findings of the essential facts, see Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subds. 2(b), 3(d), and the defendant may still challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, see State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 603 (Minn. App. 2006). II.
"This court applies the same standard regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to the review of a trial without a jury as it does to a jury trial." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 603 (Minn. App. 2006). "Our review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the determination, was sufficient to allow the fact-finder to make that determination."
The state also cites to the court of appeals' decision in State v. Eakins for the proposition that the presumption in the ordinance could not violate principles of criminal law because a petty misdemeanor is not within the definition of a crime under the criminal code. 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn.App. 2006) (citing Minn.Stat. ยง 609.02, subd. 1 (2006), which defines a "crime" as "conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine").
We decline to disturb the postconviction court's credibility determination because "[t]he credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are determinations to be made by the factfinder." State v. Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d 840, 843 (Minn. 1992) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn.App. 2006) ("[C]redibility determinations are the exclusive province of the district court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of clear error." (citing DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn. 1984)). The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence did not establish a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's ineffective representation, Ndaruhutse would not have entered his plea.
This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations on appeal "absent a showing of clear error." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn.App. 2006). Here, the district court wrote in its order:
Botello Vargas contends that a window-tint violation is not criminal in nature because it is a petty misdemeanor. See Minn. Stat. ยงยง 169.71, subd. 4(a)(3), 169.89, 609.02, subd. 4a (2016); State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 2006). He also contends that he did not violate the window-tint law because he was not driving his car on a "street or highway" but, rather, was parked on private property.
This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations on appeal "absent a showing of clear error." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn. App. 2006). Here, the district court wrote in its order:
This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations unless there is a showing of clear error. State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn. App. 2006). Although no marijuana was recovered, appellant may have smoked marijuana and either discarded his paraphernalia or ingested his marijuana cigarette.
This court will not disturb a district court's credibility determinations on appeal "absent a showing of clear error." State v. Eakins, 720 N.W.2d 597, 604 (Minn. App. 2006). Here, the district court acknowledged that Officer Bahl's police report was "lacking in specific details," but nonetheless made a finding that the officers testified credibly at the omnibus hearing.