Opinion
No. C1-96-2192.
Filed November 10, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Dakota County, File No. T19632270.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, (for respondent)
Rollin Crawford, West St. Paul City Attorney, Daniel J. Beeson, Korine L. Larsen, Assistant City Attorneys, (for respondent)
Iraj M. Fard, (pro se appellant)
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
This appeal is from a petty misdemeanor conviction of two counts of speeding in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 2 (1996). Appellant Iraj Fard argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Iraj Fard was charged by citation with two counts of petty misdemeanor speeding. The first citation alleged that on August 8, 1996, Fard was travelling at 47 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone. The second citation charged Fard with travelling 45 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone on August 20, 1996.
The officer who ticketed Fard for the first offense testified that he was parked on Butler Avenue with his radar unit on when he saw a car pass him at a high rate of speed, which he estimated at 46 m.p.h. The radar unit, which the officer testified was working properly, was properly calibrated, and had been tested at the beginning of his shift, clocked Fard's car at 47 m.p.h. The speed limit at that location was 30 m.p.h.
The officer who ticketed Fard for the second offense testified that he was driving northbound on Robert Street when he saw a southbound car going at high speed, which his radar unit clocked at 52 m.p.h. The officer testified that the radar unit was working properly, was properly calibrated, and had been tested at the beginning of his shift. The speed limit at the location was 35 m.p.h.
DECISION
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to permit the factfinder to reach the verdict that it did. State v. Webb , 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). The standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence is the same whether the factfinder is the court or the jury. See State v. Oanes , 543 N.W.2d 658, 661 (Minn.App. 1996) (applying same standard of review to court finding of guilt).
Fard argues that the officers gave false testimony. This court, however, must assume the factfinder believed the state's witnesses and disbelieved contrary evidence. State v. Sullivan , 360 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Minn.App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Apr. 12, 1985). Fard has presented no reason why the trial court should have disbelieved the officers' testimony that Fard was speeding, particularly when that testimony was corroborated by radar readings in each case.
The state satisfied the conditions for the admission of radar evidence. See Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10 (1996). The officers estimated Fard's speed was well above the speed limit, and testified that he admitted to driving at an excessive rate of speed at the scene. The evidence was amply sufficient to support Fard's conviction. Cf. State, City of St. Louis Park v. Bogren , 410 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Minn.App. 1987) (radar evidence of speeding sufficient by itself to sustain conviction).