This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn .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
- 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, M innesota (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 tr affic 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 vehicle s are required to “ obey the instructions of any officia l traffic

control device.” Minn. Stat. § 169.06, subd. 4 (a) (2012). “ Vehicular traffic facing a circular red signal alone must st op . . . . ” 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. Office r 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 eastbound3

on 36th Avenue, toward the officer. Barland was familiar with the operation of th e lights at the intersection and was aware that t he light s controlling eastbound and w estbound traffic turned var ious colors simultaneously. Barland observed the lig ht for westbound traffic, which is directly tied to eastbound traffic , change to yellow and then to red when Porada drove his veh icle through the intersection. The district co urt 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 court s defer to a district cou rt’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 i s 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 facin g 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 t o 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 assu med 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 appear s before anticipated by a driver

. Lastly, Porada argues that the distr ict court erred by failing to grant his request to vacate the traffic citation and rem ove it from his record. Porada moved the district court after filing this appeal, thus, it is not an issue properly before this court. Additionally, the re is no basis f

or 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] h e 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.