State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-2002

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Carlos Dwane Collins,
Appellant.

Filed November 4, 2019
Affirmed
Kalitowski, Judge*

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-17-4622

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rachel F. Bond, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Kalitowski,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KALITOWSKI, Judge
In a direct appeal from his conviction of check forgery, appellant Carlos Dwane
Collins argues that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.
We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
To convict appellant of check forgery, the state had to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that appellant, with intent to defraud, offered, or possessed with intent to offer, a
forged check. Minn. Stat. § 609.631, subd. 3 (2016). Appellant argues that the state did
not present sufficient evidence that he knew the check was forged or that he offered the
check with the intent to defraud.
When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we carefully review the record “to
determine whether the evidence an d reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in a
light most favorable to the verdict, were sufficient to allow the [fact-finder] to reach its
verdict.” Lapenotiere v. State, 916 N.W.2d 351, 360-61 (Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted).
We use the same sta ndard of review in bench trials and jury trials when evaluating the
sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Palmer, 803 N.W.2d 727, 733 (Minn. 2011). Intent
is a product of the mind and is generally proved by circumstantial evidence , based on
inference. State v. Cooper, 561 N.W.2d 175, 179 (Minn. 1997). Knowledge, like intent,
is also usually proved by circumstantial evidence. State v. Mattson, 359 N.W.2d 616, 617
(Minn. 1984).

3
When, as here, the challenged conviction is based on circumstantial evidence , we
apply a two-step analysis. State v. Harris, 895 N.W.2d 592, 598-601 (Minn. 2017). First,
we identify the circumstances proved “by resolving all questions of fact in favor of the
jury’s verdict.” Id. at 600. Second, we independently consider the “reasonable inferences
that can be drawn from the circumstances proved.” Id. at 601. The circumstances proved
must, as a whole, “be consistent with a reasonable inference that the accused is guilty and
inconsistent with any rat ional hypothesis except that of guilt.” Id. We assume the fact-
finder “believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State
v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989).
The state proved the following circumstances . Appel lant testified that he owns a
business, C&C Handyman Business Services, through which he performs yardwork and
landscaping services. In June 2017, a man approached appellant’s job site and asked
appellant to work for him. Appellant did not recall the man’ s name , but believed his
nickname could be Sam.
On June 23, 2017, a few minutes before closing, appellant arrived at Hiway Federal
Credit Union. Appellant was not a member at the credit union , but he wanted to cash a
check for $950. The check was written to appellant personally and belonged to M.S. and
W.S., members of the credit union. He presented the check and his identification to the
teller. The teller noticed that the logo on the check did not match the credit union’s standard
checks. She further noticed that the signature on the check did not match the signature for
W.S. that the credit union had on file , and $950 was not a typical amount that W.S. and
M.S. had withdrawn from their account. Moreover, the teller testified that attempting t o

4
cash a check just before closing is suspicious because people often commit fraudulent
transactions then, hoping that the bank employees will rush through the transaction.
Because of her suspicions, the teller presented the check to her manager. Her man ager
contacted W.S., who informed her that he did not authorize the check.
The security guard on duty during this transaction testified that appellant was
looking around, appeared “very nervous,” and paced back and forth. After learning that
the check was fraudulent, the security guard spoke to appellant. Appellant said he received
the check for doing “outside stuff,” consisting of cutting grass and trimming trees for nine
hours. When asked who issued him the check, appellant said that there was a man a nd a
woman and the man gave him the check. Appellant said that he performed the work in
Minneapolis but was unsure where. The security guard testified that appellant a ppeared
“defeated” and “nervous” when speaking to him.
Appellant testified at trial as to his version of the events. His testimony was
inconsistent with his statements to the security guard . The district court considered
appellant’s version of events but found that appellant was not credible.
In support of appellant’s first alternative theory of innocence, that he did not know
the check was forged, appellant argues that the district court “recognized that there was
nothing about the check itself that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt the knowledge
and intent elements.” But the district court based its decision on more than the face of the
check. Specifically, the district court found that “the inquiry does not conclude with an
examination of the financial instrument.” And we do not view the circumstances proved

5
in isolation; we view the circumstances proved as a whole. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d
594, 599 (Minn. 2013).
The circumstances, when viewed as a whole, render appellant’s theory that he did
not know the check was forged unreasonable. Appellant entered the bank minutes before
close which, as the teller testified, is suspicious. He appeared “very nervous” and paced
back and forth. Further, when confronted by the security guard, he was unable to provide
specific details about where he performed the work and who issued h im the check. He
claimed that he received $950 for nine hours of working on “outside stuff.” At trial, for
the first time, he claimed that he performed seven to eight hours of work per day for four
days. And appellant claimed that he worked on behalf of his business, but the check was
written to him personally. Moreover, although the check belonged to W.S. and M.S.,
appellant testified that the man who gave him the check introduced himself as Sam.
Appellant also testified that he believed he was owed more than $950, but did not raise the
issue at the time Sam paid hi m, although he did not know anything about Sam other than
his nickname.
Appellant also appears to take issue with the fact that the district court based its
verdict “in large part” on appellant’s statements to the security guard at the time of his
arrest. But the district court, as fact -finder, is permitted to credit the secu rity guard’ s
testimony. Given appellant’s demeanor in the bank, his lack of specificity regarding the
origins of the check, and his inconsistent accounts of how he obtained the check,
appellant’s alternative theory that he did not know the check was forged is not reasonable.

6
Appellant’s second alternative theory of innocence, that he did not offer the check
with the intent to defraud, is also unreasonable. If appellant believed that the check was
invalid and was merely attempting to verify its validity, he would have clarified this when
speaking with the teller or when the security guard confronted him. And the teller testified
that it was clear to her that appellant was trying to cash the check. She stated that the only
reason appellant would have offered identification would be to cash the check. Appellant
did not offer the explanation that he was merely trying to verify the check’s validity until
trial. Viewing the circumstances proved in the light most favorable to the district court’s
verdict, appellant’s alternative theories of innocence are not reasonable.
Affirmed.