Opinion
No. C0-01-1406.
Filed April 23, 2002.
Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, File No. T101607843.
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, and Michael J. Budka, (for respondent)
James Hankes, Second District Public Defender, Thomas A. Handley, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Shumaker, Judge, and Foley, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2000).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Paul Edward Orsello appeals from his conviction for violating a Ramsey County harassment restraining order. Appellant argues that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the order while an appeal was pending from a similar order involving the same parties; (2) he cannot be convicted for conduct falling within the terms of one restraining order but outside the terms of another; and (3) the district court erred in denying appellant's request to stay probationary conditions pending appeal where he agreed to a Lothenbach stipulation in exchange for a stay of probationary supervision pending appeal. We affirm.
DECISION I.
This court reviews issues of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. State v. Busse, 616 N.W.2d 760, 761 (Minn.App. 2000).
Appellant contends the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to issue a Harassment Restraining Order (HRO) when appellant was appealing a Chisago County HRO. Appellant argues that the Ramsey County HRO mooted his appeal of the Chisago County HRO. Appellant contends allowing such a thing will lead to forum shopping and attempts at overpowering defendants by scheduling multiple hearing dates. We disagree.
Minnesota's harassment restraining order statute provides "[a] person who is a victim of harassment may seek a restraining order from the district court in the manner provided in this section." Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 2 (2000). As the district court noted, Minn. Stat. § 609.748 places no geographic limit on the jurisdiction of the district court. Id. Appellant's only authority for his claim that Ramsey County lacked jurisdiction over him is Minn.R.App.P. 108.03, which states an appeal suspends the authority of the district court to modify or make any order affecting the order or judgment appealed from. But the Ramsey County HRO is not a modification of the Chisago County HRO, so this rule is inapplicable.
Thus, appellant provides nothing to suggest that the Ramsey County court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Further, we note that there had been a change in circumstances from the Chisago County HRO in that appellant's ex-wife moved to Ramsey County. Moreover, appellant was present at the Ramsey County hearing imposing the HRO and he failed to appeal that order so this is a collateral attack on that order. Case law suggests "an order may not be collaterally attacked unless the absence of jurisdiction is clear on the face of the record." State v. Nodes, 538 N.W.2d 158, 160 (Minn.App. 1995) (citing In re Hudson, 226 Minn. 532, 536, 33 N.W.2d 848, 852 (1948); Pangolos v. Halpern, 247 Minn. 890, 86, 76 N.W.2d 702, 707 (1956)). Because it is not clear from the face of the record that the court lacked jurisdiction, we find the evidence insufficient to sustain a collateral attack on the validity of the Ramsey County HRO. Thus, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over appellant and its ruling stands.
II.
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, sufficiently supports the fact-finder's verdict. State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989).
Appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to convict him where his conduct did not violate the Chisago County HRO. Appellant alleges that if both HROs are valid, "it strains credibility to argue a criminal conviction can result from a violation of one order that could not be considered a violation of the other." We disagree.
Whether appellant's conduct violated the Chisago County HRO is irrelevant. He knowingly violated the Ramsey County HRO. Appellant was present at the Ramsey County HRO hearing and knew of that county's HRO and its limits. Appellant violated those limits. Thus, the district court did not err in determining the evidence sufficiently proved appellant violated the Ramsey County HRO.
III.
The decision to depart from sentencing guidelines rests within the district court's discretion and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Givens, 544 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Minn. 1996).
Appellant contends that because the district court refused to stay execution of the Ramsey County HRO until the appeal was resolved, he should be allowed to withdraw from his Lothenbach proceeding. Appellant argues he relied on a representation of the court in agreeing to the Lothenbach hearing, and that representation was discarded so his agreement was not voluntary. We disagree.
Nothing in the record indicates that the court promised to stay execution of the Ramsey County HRO if appellant agreed to a Lothenbach proceeding. Without such evidence, appellant's contention becomes a claim for relief based merely on obtaining an unsatisfactory result. Appellant waives an issue based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authorities unless mere inspection reveals obvious prejudicial error. Schoepke v. Alexander Smith Sons Carpet Co., 290 Minn. 518, 519-20, 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (1971). We find no obvious prejudicial error. Thus, the district court did not err in refusing to stay the Ramsey County HRO.