This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn . Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (201 2 ). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14 - 0032 State of Minnesota, Respondent,

vs. Ali Mehrallian, Appellant. Filed December 15, 2014 Affirmed Johnson , Judge Dakota County District Court File No. 19WS

- CR

- 13

- 11686 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and William L. Bernard, Jeremy P. Knutson, Grannis & Hauge, P.A., Eagan, Minnesota (for respondent) Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Stephen L. Smith, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Worke , Presiding Judge; Johnson , Judge; and Reyes , Judge

.2 U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N JOHNSON , Judge A Dakota County jury found Ali Mehralian 1 guilty of contempt of court based on evidence that he violat ed an eviction order that required him to vac ate his former wife’s home

. Mehralian does not dispute that he did not vacate his former wife’s home, but he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the ground s that other court orders permitted him to remain in the home and that he did not willfully violate the eviction order . We affirm. FACTS This appeal arises from a failed relationship between Mehralian and a woman, R.D. , to whom he was married from 2010 to 20 13

. In March 2012 , while Meh ra lian a nd R.D. were separated, R.D

. obtained a harassment restraining order (HRO) from the Dakota County District Court. The HRO prohibited Mehralian , for two years, from harassing or having any contact with R.D. and ordered him to stay away from her home in Eag an , which they previously had shared

. I n August 2012, the district court amended the March 2012 HRO to allow Mehralian to be present at the home “unless [ R.D. ] is on the property, in which case he shall leave.” In May 2012 , Mehralian petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in the Hennepin County District Court. In August 2012, that court awarded temporary custody of the

1 The caption of this opinion spell s appellant’s last name with a double l , which is the way it is spelled in the district court’s sentencing order and in the notice of appeal. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 143.01. I n his handwritten pro se supplemental brief, however, Mehralian spells his last name with only one l

. T hus , we use that spelling throughout the body of this opinion.3

couple’s two children to Mehralian. In September 2012 , the Dakota County District Court transferred the HRO case to the Hennepin County District Court. I n June 2013, the Hennepin County District Court issued its dissolution judgment and decree. The decree awarded the marital homestead to R.D. and award ed sole legal and physical custody of the children to Mehralian

. T he decree provides that Mehralian and the children may “maintain exclusive use and occupancy of the homestead through the end of the [ 2012

- 2013 ] school year ” but that Mehralian “ shall vacate the home no later than July 31, 2013, and [ R.D. ] shall assume possession and occupancy of the home begin ning August 1, 2013.” Mehralian did not vacate the home by July 31, 20 13 . R .D. commenced an eviction action in the Dakota County District Court

. O n Tuesday, August 20, 2013, R.D. and Mehralian appeared before the district c ourt for a hearing . Both parties appeared pro se . At that time, Mehralian still was living in the home

. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court issued an eviction order in which it granted the relief sought by R.D. The order includes a finding that Mehralian “has failed to vacate the premises after notice to vacate was properly given.” The order includes a conclusion of law that R.D. “is entitled to possession of the premises and [ Mehralian ] should vacate the premises. ” The order includes a provision that state s, “ T he Writ of Recovery (the Order requiring Defendant to vacate the premises) will be issued 8/21/13 @ noon and [Mehralian] may remain in possession of the premises until that date. ” Judgment was entered that same day. The next day, Wednesday, August 21, 2013, Mehralian filed two pro se motions :

an emergency motion to quash the writ and an emergency motion to stay the writ. The4

district court promptly denied both motion s that same day. Mehralian also attempted to appeal from the eviction judgment on that day

. T his court later dismissed the appeal for
pr ocedural deficiencies. See No. A13

- 1578 (Minn. App. Oct. 11, 2013) (order). On Thursday, August 22, 2013, a t approximately 11:00 p.m., R.D. went to h er home because she had heard that Mehralian was removing her possessions . She saw that Mehralian and the children were present inside the home , which indicated that Mehralian had not vacated the property. She called the police

. R.D. showed the responding officer the March 2012 HRO and the August 20, 2013 eviction order

. The officer attempted to verify the documents by accessing the district court ’s records , but he was unable to do so because of the “numerous court records associated with the tw o parties.” R.D. left without entering the home. On Monday, August 26, 2013, the Eagan police department issued a citation to Mehralian for violating the August 2012 amended HRO by being present at R.D.’s home

on August 22 , 2013

. I n October 2013, the s tate filed a complaint in which it charged Mehralian with one count of violating an HRO , in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.748 , subd. 6(b) (2012) , and one count of contempt of court , in violation of Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4) (2012) . Both counts wer e based on an allegation that Mehralian violated the August 2012 amended HRO by being present at R.D.’s home on August 22 , 2013

. Shortly before trial, the state amended the complaint to charg e Mehralian with an additional count of contempt of court, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4)

. Th e additional count was based on an allegation that Mehralian violated the August 20, 2013 eviction order by occupying R.D.’s home on August 22, 2013

.5

The case was tried to a jury on two days in November 20 13. The state called three witnesses in its case

- in

- chief: R.D. and two Eagan police officers . After the state rested,
t he district court dismissed the first two counts, which were based on the alleged violations of the August 2012 amended HRO , on the gr ound that the state had failed to prove that Mehralian knowingly violated the terms of th at HRO on August 22 , 2013

. Mehralian testified in his own defense but did not call any other witnesses. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the sole remaining c ount, contempt of court for violat ing the August 20, 2013 eviction order. I n December 2013, the district court sentenced Mehralian to 15 days in j ail and placed him on probation for one year. Mehralian appeals. D E C I S I O N Mehralian argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of contempt of court

. When considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this court conducts “a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a ligh t most favorable to the conviction,” is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did. State v. Caine , 746 N.W.2d 339, 356 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). We must assume that the jury “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” Gulbertson v. State , 843 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Minn. 2014) (quotation omitted). “[W]e will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable do ubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense. ”6

State v. Ortega , 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (citing Bernhardt v. State , 684 N.W.2d 465, 476

- 77 (Minn. 2004)). A person is guilty of contempt of court if he engages in “willful disobedience to the lawful process or other mandate of a court.” Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4) (2012). In this case, t he state’s evidence includes the Dakota County District Court’s Aug ust 20, 2013 eviction order. That order plainly states that R.D. “is entitled to possession of the premises and [Mehralian] should vacate the premises,” and further states Mehralian “may remain in possession of the premises” until noon on August 21, 2013. The state also introduced evidence that Mehralian was still in possession of R.D.’s home on August 22, 2013

. R.D. testi fied that Mehralian was still living in her home that evening and that she was unable to exercise her right to exclusive possession. Mehralian himself testified that he sought to stay and to appeal from the eviction order because he did not want to move his possessions out of the home. Mehralian appears to contend that the August 20, 2013 eviction order is not a valid, binding order be cause it is inconsistent with the August 2012 amended HRO, which provided that he could remain in the home “unless [ R.D. ] is on the property, in which case he shall leave.” Mehralian notes that neither the June 2013 dissolution decree nor the August 20, 2 013 eviction order “specifically” nullified the August 2012 amended HRO. Mehralian provides no legal authority for his suggestion that the eviction order was ineffective or invalid because of the previous ly issued orders or because the eviction order did not expressly supersede the previously issued orders

. If Mehralian believed that the eviction order should have accommodated or incorporated the previously issued7

orders , he was obligated to present argument to that effect to the district court at the evi ction hearing and , if unsuccessful, to properly appeal from any adverse judgment arising from that hearing . Having failed to persuade the district court that he was entitled
to possess the property , Mehralian may not mount a collateral attack on the evict ion order in this criminal case. See State v. Ness , 819 N.W.2d 219 , 222

- 23 (Minn. App. 2012) , aff’d , 834 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. 2013); State v. Romine , 757 N.W.2d 884, 890 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Feb. 17, 2009). F urthermore, Mehralian is incorrect in his premise that the eviction order necessarily conflicts with the August 2012 amended HRO

. The former required him to vacate the home by noon on August 21, 2013 , and to no longer occupy it as a resident ; the latter allowed him to be pres ent at the home, as a visitor , unless R.D. was at home. The evidence shows that Mehralian kept his possessions at the home after noon on August 21, 2013 , thereby occupying it as a resident. His continued occupation of the home as a resident is not permit ted by the August 2012 amended HRO

. Thus, Mehralian has no basis for arguing that the eviction order is ineffective or in valid due to a conflict with the August 2012 amended HRO. Mehralian also appears to contend that the evidence is insufficient to prove that any violation of the eviction order was willful. He asserts that the multiplicity of orders governing th e home created an ambiguous and confusing situation. But the state’s case includes abundant evidence from which a jury could infer that Mehralian knew that he

was prohibited from occupying the home as of noon on August 21, 2013. For example, Mehralian testified that he knew that the dissolution decree required him to vacate the8

home by July 31, 2013 . The state introduced evidence that Me hralian took vigorous

measures on August 20, 2013 to stay the eviction order , first by filing motions with the Dakota County D istrict C ourt and then by attempting to lodge an appeal with this court. The state introduced the statement of the case that Mehr alian filed in this court, in which Mehralian acknowledged that, at the August 20, 2013 eviction hearing, the Dakota County judge told him to be “ out by 12:00 noon tomorrow.” Th is body of evidence is more than sufficient to allow the jury to infer that Me hralian knew that he was required to vacate the home by noon on August 2 1 , 2013 , and, thus, to conclude that Mehralian willfully disobeyed the Dakota County District Court’s eviction order

. In his pro se supplemental brief, Mehralian appears to argue that , despite the eviction order , he was not prohibited from occupying the home on August 22, 2013, because he had not been served with a writ of recovery. T he district court addressed this issue with Mehralian at his sentencing hearing ; the district court ex plain ed that a writ of
recovery is issued to the county sheriff , not to the person to be evicted, and is merely a means by which the person entitled to possession may enforce an eviction order

. The district court is correct. Mehralian was required by law to comply with the terms of the eviction order without regard for whether the sheriff executed the writ of recovery

. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.365, subd. 1(a); Smith v. Park , 31 Minn. 70, 73, 16 N.W. 490, 492 (1883). Mehralian could have forestalled the ev iction and lawfully remained in possession only if he had properly appealed from the eviction judgment and posted a supersedeas bond to cover the costs of an appeal

. See Minn. Stat. § 504B.371, subds. 1

- 5. (2012) ; Makela v. Peters , 425 N.W.2d 605, 60 5

- 0 6 (Minn. App. 1988)

. But Mehralian9

did not properly lodge an appeal with this court a nd did not post a supersedeas bond. No. A13

- 1578 (Minn. App. Aug. 29, 2013) (order). Thus, his contention is without merit. We have review ed the entirety of Mehralian ’s pro se supplemental brief , and we conclude that it does not contain any grounds for reversal. Affirmed.