State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1643

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Bruce Alan Baker,
Appellant.

Filed April 30, 2018
Affirmed
Halbrooks, Judge

Chippewa County District Court
File No. 12-CR-17-331

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

David M. Gilbertson, Chippewa County Attorney, Montevideo, Minnesota (for
respondent)

Bruce Alan Baker, Dawson, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Schellhas, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant challenges his petty misdemeanor conviction of careless driving, arguing
that his rights were violated because the district court did not inform him that he could

2
oppose the state’s request for a continuance and because the district court abused its
discretion by denying his subsequent request for a continuance. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Bruce Baker was pulled over by a deputy sheriff on May 25, 2017, after
a concerned citizen called 911 to report that she had observed Baker driving erratically .
Baker was charged with careless driving under Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subd. 2 (2016). The
state certified the charge as a petty misdemeanor.
A court trial was originally scheduled for September 6, 2017 , but Baker, pro se,
made a timely request to remove the assigned judge. A new judge was assigned , and the
court trial was rescheduled f or September 14. The prosecutor then asked that the trial be
rescheduled based on prior notice that he was going to be on vacation that week. Baker
did not oppose this request, and the district court rescheduled the trial for October 5.
On September 25 , Baker requested that the trial be rescheduled for “around Nov.
15” so that he could continue to prepare for trial. The prosecutor opposed Baker’s request
for a continuance on the grounds that witnesses had been notified, subpoenas had been
served, and the case had been on the calendar for trial since early August. The district court
denied Baker’s request.
At trial, the concerned citizen, the deputy, and Baker testified. The district court
found Baker guilty of careless driving and imposed a $100 fine. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Baker asks that we overturn his conviction on two grounds. He first asserts that his
constitutional rights were violated because the district court did not advise him that he

3
could oppose the state’s request for a continuance. Whether a district court ’s actions
violate a defendant’s constitutional rights is a question of law that we review de novo. State
v. Tate, 682 N.W.2d 169, 174 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Sept. 29, 2004).
In support of his argument, Baker relies on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-
68, 473, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1624, 1627 (1966). But Miranda addresses an individual’s rights
applicable to a custodial interrogation, which is not at issue here. Miranda does not impose
an affirmative duty on a district court to educate a pro se d efendant on the nuances of
pretrial motions. Rather, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as attorneys. See
State v. Larson, 520 N.W.2d 456, 464 (Minn. App. 1994) , review denied (Minn. Oct. 14,
1994). We conclude that Baker’s rights were not violated in this matter.
Second, Baker contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a
continuance. We review a district court’s denial of a request for a continuance for an abuse
of discretion. State v. Miller, 488 N.W.2d 235, 239 (Minn. 1992). And we look to “the
circumstances surrounding the requested continuance and whether the denial was so
prejudicial in the preparation of an adequate defense as to materially affect the outcome of
the trial.” Id. (quotation omitted). Baker argues that he needed more time to research,
investigate leads, and prepare for trial. And he asserts that the outcome at trial would have
been different had he been given a continuance to do so. But Baker provides no examples
of evidence that he could have obtained through further investigation; nor does he explain
what “leads” he had. Baker had more than four months to prepare for trial, and he has not
shown that this was insufficient or that the outcome at trial would have been different had
the district court granted his motion . We conclude that the district cou rt acted within its

4
discretion by denying Baker’s request for a continuance made approximately ten days
before trial.
Affirmed.