This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A14-0114

State of Minnesota, 

Respondent, 

vs. 

Sergey Alekseyevich Porada, 

Appellant

Filed October 14, 2014

Affirmed; motion granted

Worke, Judge

Hennepin County District Court

File No. 27-VB-13-10682

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Peter A. MacMillan, MacMillan, Wallace & Athanases, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota 

(for respondent)

Sergey Porada, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and 

Schellhas, Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

WORKE, Judge

Appellant argues that the district court erred by finding him guilty of disobeying a 

traffic light and denying his request to vacate the traffic citation. We affirm. 
2

D E C I S I O N

Appellant Sergey Alekseyevich Porada argues that the district court erred when it 

found that the state proved him guilty of illegal movement on a red light. Porada 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, 

we apply the same standard to a jury trial or a bench trial. State v. Hughes, 355 N.W.2d 

500, 502 (Minn. App. 1984), review denied (Minn. Jan. 2, 1985). We review the record to 

determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, 

is sufficient to allow the fact-finder to reach the verdict that it did. State v. Webb, 440 

N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). We will not disturb the verdict if the fact-finder, acting 

with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged 

offense. Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 465, 476-77 (Minn. 2004).

Drivers of vehicles are required to “obey the instructions of any official trafficcontrol device.” Minn. Stat. § 169.06, subd. 4(a) (2012). “Vehicular traffic facing a 

circular red signal alone must stop . . . .” Id., subd. 5(a)(3)(i) (2012). The district court 

concluded that Officer Mason Barland’s testimony, which was corroborated by the video 

recording of the incident from the officer’s squad car, established that Porada failed to 

stop at a red light. 

Porada argues that the district court improperly relied on Officer Barland’s 

testimony because the officer did not see him move on a red light. Officer Barland 

testified that he was in a parking lot on the southeast corner of the intersection of 36th 

Avenue and Douglas Drive in the city of Crystal, Minnesota. Porada travelled eastbound 
3

on 36th Avenue, toward the officer. Barland was familiar with the operation of the lights 

at the intersection and was aware that the lights controlling eastbound and westbound 

traffic turned various colors simultaneously. Barland observed the light for westbound 

traffic, which is directly tied to eastbound traffic, change to yellow and then to red when 

Porada drove his vehicle through the intersection. The district court believed the officer’s 

testimony, which was corroborated by the video recording. See Miles v. State, 840 

N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2013) (stating that appellate courts defer to a district court’s 

credibility determinations).

Porada asserts that the district court was required to believe him and his witness, 

who was his passenger and his wife. Porada asserts that the district court “demonstrated 

bias and national origin discrimination.” But he fails to provide any evidence that the

district court was biased. And his alleged error is based on “mere assertion” and is not 

supported by argument or authority. See State v. Wembley, 712 N.W.2d 783, 795 (Minn. 

App. 2006) (stating that alleged error not supported by argument or authority is waived 

unless prejudicial error is obvious), aff’d on other grounds, 728 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 

2007).

Porada also argues that the state failed to provide the court with any evidence that 

the light was functioning correctly. Officer Barland testified that there was no indication 

that the traffic-control signal was not working properly. He stated that the light cycle is 

approximately 17 seconds. Porada argues that 17 seconds is not the “correct semaphore 

cycle.” But regardless of the cycle, “traffic facing a circular red signal alone must stop.” 
4

Minn. Stat. § 169.06, subd. 5(a)(3)(i). Drivers are not allowed to follow only a “correct

semaphore cycle.” Drivers are required to obey the signaled lights. 

Porada additionally argues that the state failed to provide evidence from MnDOT 

or other authority indicating the correct length of the light phases of the semaphore. But, 

again, this argument fails to address the issue. A driver is not allowed to time the 

movement of his or her vehicle based on an assumed time pattern. A driver is required to 

follow the light indicators as they change. A red light indicates to a driver that the driver 

must stop, regardless if the red light appears before anticipated by a driver. 

Lastly, Porada argues that the district court erred by failing to grant his request to 

vacate the traffic citation and remove it from his record. Porada moved the district court 

after filing this appeal, thus, it is not an issue properly before this court. Additionally, 

there is no basis for removing the citation from Porada’s record. 

The state moves this court to strike Porada’s appendix. We grant this motion 

because the district court record does not contain any of these documents. See Minn. R. 

Civ. App. P. 110.01 (stating that “[t]he papers filed in the [district] court, the exhibits, 

and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all 

cases”). 

Affirmed; motion granted.