Opinion
No. C3-99-1589.
Filed June 27, 2000.
Appeal from the District Court, Aitkin County, File No. T7991582.
Mike Hatch, Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley C. Rhodes, Aitkin County Attorney, James P. Ratz, Assistant Aitkin County Attorney, (for respondent)
David William Schliep, (appellant pro se)
Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Amundson, Judge, and Anderson, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant disputes his petty-misdemeanor conviction for passing in a no-passing zone. There being no merit to the propositions he has stated on appeal, we affirm.
DECISION
Contrary to appellant's assertion, the trial court had jurisdiction in the case. Minn. Const. Art. 6, § 3; Minn. Stat. § 609.025, subd. 1 (1998). Appellant cites no authority and we find none for his claim that his self-designation as a "common law" citizen puts him outside the reach of the district court or its applications of state law.
Appellant asserts that he was denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. But the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not binding on the states. Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527, 531, 80 N.W.2d 854, 857-58 (1957) (citing Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 (1877)). Appellant was charged with a violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 5(b)(3) (1998), which under Minn. Stat. § 169.89, subd. 1 (1998), is a petty misdemeanor, and in Minnesota, appellant was not entitled to a jury trial for a petty-misdemeanor offense. Minn. Stat. § 169.89, subd. 2 (1998); State v. Champion, 400 N.W.2d 185, 186 (Minn.App. 1987) (rejecting claim that defendant was entitled to a jury trial on a petty-misdemeanor charge, on the basis of Minn. Stat. § 169.89, subd. 2). See also Minn.R.Crim.P. 26.01, subd. 1 (defendants entitled to a jury trial in any prosecution for an offense punishable by incarceration). Although the Minnesota Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial in "all criminal prosecutions," Minn. Const. Art. 1, § 6, a petty misdemeanor is not a "crime." See Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 1 ("crime" consists of conduct for which a defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment); subd. 4a ("petty misdemeanor" is a petty offense, prohibited by statute, that does not constitute a crime and for which a sentence of a fine of not more than $200 may be imposed); see also Minn.R.Crim.P. 23.06 (a petty misdemeanor is not considered a crime).
Contrary to appellant's assertion, the traffic statutes of the State of Minnesota do not constitute bills of attainder because they do not "legislatively" determine guilt and inflict punishment. Reserve Mining Co. v. State, 310 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Minn. 1981) (citing Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 468, 97 S.Ct. 2777, 2802 (1977)).
Appellant disputes the form of his driver's license issued by the State of Minnesota, but does not demonstrate the relevancy of this assertion to this case.
Appellant disputes the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction but has refused to provide a transcript. This court can not review a claim of insufficiency of the evidence without a transcript. Godbout v. Norton, 262 N.W.2d 374, 376 (Minn. 1977); Minneapolis Community Dev. Agency v. Mark Lee Prods., Inc., 411 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Minn.App. 1987).
Appellant's request for costs is denied. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 139.01-.02 (providing that statutory costs and necessary disbursements may be awarded to prevailing party).