Opinion
A23-1647
07-30-2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jason Lee Wisniewski, Appellant.
Lincoln County District Court File No. 41-VB-23-108
Considered and decided by Wheelock, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Ede, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Sarah I. Wheelock, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In May 2023, an officer stopped appellant Jason Lee Wisniewski after receiving reports that Wisniewski was driving without vehicle registration or insurance. During the stop, Wisniewski refused to provide the officer with his driver's license or insurance information when asked, and the officer issued two citations on behalf of respondent State of Minnesota. The first citation was issued pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 168.09, subd. 4 (2022), for failure to display current registration; the second was issued pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169.791, subd. 2(a) (2022), for failure to provide proof of motor-vehicle insurance. During each of Wisniewski's appearances on these charges, he refused to come forward to the well, shouted at the judge from the gallery, interrupted the judge and prosecutor, and generally refused to follow the district court's instructions. The district court determined that Wisniewski's refusal to comply with its directions and his behavior during the hearings constituted failure to appear. The prosecutor certified the charges as petty misdemeanors, and in October 2023, the district court found him guilty of both charges and ordered Wisniewski to pay fines.
2. In this direct appeal, Wisniewski argues that (1) the district court did not have jurisdiction over him, (2) the state denied him due process because the citation was not a valid indictment, (3) the state did not provide sufficient evidence for the district court to convict him, and (4) the judge committed misconduct when she determined that Wisniewski failed to appear. We address each argument in turn and conclude that none of them has merit.
3. First, Wisniewski argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction over him. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.025(1) (2022), "[a] person may be convicted and sentenced under the law of this state if the person . . . commits an offense in whole or in part within this state." To the extent that Wisniewski asserts he is not subject to the laws of Minnesota because he is not a citizen of Minnesota and identifies as a "sovereign citizen," this does not free him from prosecution under the law of this state. This court has stated that "the sovereign-citizen jurisdictional defense has 'no conceivable validity in American law.'" State v. Winbush, 912 N.W.2d 678, 686 (Minn.App. 2018) (quoting United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990)), rev. denied (Minn. May 29, 2018). Therefore, we reject Wisniewski's argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
4. Second, Wisniewski argues that the state denied him due process because the citation was not a valid indictment. But the state was not required to charge Wisniewski by an indictment. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 17.01, subd. 2 ("Misdemeanors . . . may be prosecuted by tab charge."). A tab charge must include a reference to the statute the person is alleged to have violated. Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.04(c). The tab charge here states that Wisniewski failed to display current registration as required by Minn. Stat. § 168.09, subd. 4, and that he failed to provide proof of motor-vehicle insurance as required by Minn. Stat. § 169.791, subd. 2(a). Because the state was not required to charge Wisniewski by an indictment and the tab charge referenced the statutes he was alleged to have violated, there is no error implicating Wisniewski's due-process rights.
5. Third, Wisniewski argues the state did not provide sufficient evidence for the district court to find him guilty. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts "determine whether the facts in the record and the legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact-finder] to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted." State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156, 160 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). Here, the evidence in the record includes the traffic citation and the officer's report, both of which demonstrate that the officer observed that current registration was not displayed on Wisniewski's vehicle and that Wisniewski did not provide proof of insurance to the officer when asked. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient, and we discern no error.
6. Fourth, Wisniewski argues that the judge committed misconduct when she determined that Wisniewski failed to appear. "A district court has a responsibility . . . [to] oversee[] and regulat[e] courtroom conduct and procedure during trials, including criminal trials." State v. Romine, 757 N.W.2d 884, 892 (Minn.App. 2008) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 17, 2009). A district court has broad discretion when directing matters of decorum in its courtroom. Id. Therefore, we review courtroom management for an abuse of discretion. "A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record." State v. Hallmark, 927 N.W.2d 281, 291 (Minn. 2019) (quotation omitted). The transcript in this case reflects that Wisniewski repeatedly disrupted the proceedings with his conduct and did not comply with the district court's instructions to follow courtroom decorum despite several requests and warnings from the judge. Only after several exchanges did the district court determine that Wisniewski's conduct constituted a failure to appear. Because we afford the district court broad discretion when managing courtroom decorum, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Wisniewski's conduct constituted a failure to appear.
7. As for any remaining arguments on appeal that Wisniewski asserted without briefing, they are forfeited because we do not assume error on appeal and discern no obvious prejudicial error upon mere inspection. See State v. Andersen, 871 N.W.2d 910, 915 (Minn. 2015) (explaining that a party forfeits an issue when, on appeal, they assign error "based on mere assertion" and do not support it with any argument or authority); State v. Fleming, 869 N.W.2d 319, 329 (Minn.App. 2015) (citing Loth v. Loth, 35 N.W.2d 542, 546 (Minn. 1949)) (demonstrating that we do not presume error on appeal), aff'd, 883 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2016).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's final judgments are affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.