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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1252

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

David Terrance Sigler,
Appellant.

Filed June 29, 2020
Affirmed; motion denied
Larkin, Judge

Clay County District Court
File No. 14-VB-19-2206

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

Brian J. Melton, Clay County Attorney, Elisabeth Mary Kirchner, Assistant County
Attorney, Moorhead, Minnesota (for respondent)

David Terrance Sigler, Moorhead, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Rodenberg, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant, a self -represented litigant, challenges his conviction for petty -
misdemeanor speeding . We affirm appellant’s conviction and deny as moot the state’s
motion to strike one of appellant’s submissions to this court.
FACTS
In 2019, an officer stopped and cited appellant David Terrance Sigler for driving 65
miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-hour zone, a petty-misdemeanor offense. Sigler contested
his citation, and the district court scheduled a court trial.
Before trial, Sigler filed a demand for a jury trial, a “reservation of rights,” a plea of
“Nul Tiel Record ,” and a “statement of facts ” containing several legal claims, including
that he is not “subject to any entity anywhere.” He also filed a memorandum seeking to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Sigler represented himself at his court trial. He again asked for a jury trial, and the
district court informed him that he did not have that right in a petty -misdemeanor case.
The district court also denied Sigler’s request to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction . Sigler
asked that any witnesses be sequestered. Because there was only one witness and the trial
was about to begin, the district court denied that request.
The officer who issued Sigler the citation testified that he was on patrol when he
observed a vehicle that “appeared to be traveling over the p osted speed limit of 55 miles
an hour.” The officer used his squad car’s radar equipment to determine that the vehicle

3
was traveling 74 miles per hour. The officer sto pped the vehicle and identified Sigler as
the driver. Sigler admitted to driving 65 miles per hour.
The district court found Sigler guilty of driving 65 miles per hour in a 55 mile-per-
hour zone. This appeal followed.
After filing his appellate brief, Sigler filed a letter from his bank with this court,
which described the garnishment of funds from his bank account. He also filed a “motion
to accept amended briefs” and requested that we consider “a new claim” concerning the
aforementioned garnishment. The state moved to strike the bank’s letter from the record
on appeal.
D E C I S I O N
I.
Sigler contends that the district court deprived him of the right to a jury trial. This
presents an issue of constitutional law subject to de novo review . State v. Barker , 705
N.W.2d 768, 771 (Minn. 2005).
Although the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “[i]n all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury,” the amendment has been construed to apply only to “serious” offenses, and
not to “petty offenses.” U.S. Const. amend. VI; see Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145,
159, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 1453 (1968) (“It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty
crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision and
should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to
the States.” (footnote omitted)).

4
Sigler relies on article I, section 4 of the Minnesota Constitution , which provides
that “[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law
without regard to the amount in controversy .” Sigler’s reliance on that provision is
unavailing because the Minnesota Supreme Court has indicated that it “is limited to civil
cases.” State v. Lessley, 779 N.W.2d 825, 840 (Minn. 2010).
In Minnesota, “[a] person charged with a petty misdemeanor is not entitled to a jury
trial but shall be tried by a judge without a jury. ” Minn. Stat. § 169.89, subd. 2 (2018);
Zimmerman v. Lasky , 374 N.W.2d 212, 214 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn.
Nov. 26, 1985). The district court did not err by refusing to provide Sigler with a jury trial
on his petty-misdemeanor charge.
II.
Sigler contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction “is the power to hear and decide disputes.” State v. Smith, 421
N.W.2d 315, 318 (Minn. 1988) . We review jurisdictional questions de novo. State v.
Manypenny, 682 N.W.2d 143, 149 (Minn. 2004).
Sigler’s central “jurisdictional” argument is that there is an important legal
distinction between driving and traveling. According to Sigler, “driving is a commercial
activity that is able to be regulated by the state,” but “traveling is a fundamental [r]ight that
is not able to be infri nged upon without a damaged party,” and no law can “turn a
fundamental right into a privilege.” Although Sigler purports to challenge the district
court’s power to hear and decide his case, he actually challenges the constitutionality of

5
the statute under which he was charged, Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 2(a)(3) (2018), arguing
that it infringes on his fundamental right to travel.
The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.
Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr. , 811 N.W.2d 643, 653 (Minn. 2012). “Minnesota statutes
are presumed constitutional, and [a court ’s] power to declare a statute unconstitutional
should be exercised with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” In re
Haggerty, 448 N.W.2d 363, 364 ( Minn. 1989). “The challenger of the constitutional
validity of a statute must meet the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable
doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura,
610 N.W.2d 293, 299 (Minn. 2000).
“The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the issue of whether the
fundamental right to interstate travel includes the right to intrastate travel,” but this court
has held that the “ right to intrastate travel need only receive an inte rmediate level of
scrutiny.” State v. Stallman, 519 N.W.2d 903, 906-07 (Minn. App. 1994). Regardless of
the level of scrutiny applicable , “not every law which makes a right more difficult to
exercise is, ipso facto, an infringement of that right.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505
U.S. 833, 873, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 2818 (1992). There must be some appreciable infringement
on the right. See Zablocki v. Redhail , 434 U.S. 374, 388, 98 S. Ct. 673, 682 (1978)
(indicating that a fundamental right will only b e implicated by government action that
“significantly interferes with the exercise of [that] fundamental right”).
Section 169.14, subdivision 2(a)(3), generally prohibits driving over 55 miles per
hour in certain locations. Sigler has not met his burden to establish that t his speed

6
limitation significantly interferes with his right to intras tate travel or rise s to a level that
would implicate his fundamental right to travel. Because Sigler’s constitutional argument
fails, so too does his related jurisdictional challenge.
Sigler also asserts that the district cou rt lacked personal jurisdiction, but he fails to
offer any legal argument or citation to legal authority in support of that assertion. We will
not consider pro se claims that are unsupported by argument or citation to legal authority
unless prejudicial error is obvious. State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8, 22-23 (Minn. 2008).
We discern no obvious prejudicial error.
III.
Sigler contends that the district court erred by denying his request to sequester
witnesses. Although a request for witness sequestration should rarely be denied, the
decision is ultimately discretionary, and we review such decisions for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Jones, 347 N.W.2d 796, 802 (Minn. 1984).
In Jones, the supreme court concluded that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying a sequestration request because a large number of witness es had
already testified and sequestration therefore would have “served no purpose.” Id.
Likewise, in this case, sequestration would have served no purpose. The state presented a
single witness, so there was no one to sequester. The district court did not abuse its
discretion.
IV.
Sigler contends that the state and the district court erred by failing to consider his
“plea of Nul Teil Record.” A plea of nul tiel record is a plea alleging that the record on

7
which the action is founded does not exist. 26 C.J.S. Debt, Action of § 22 (2020). Sigler
does not cite any law discussing such a plea. Minnesota’s civil caselaw refers to such pleas,
but none more recent ly than 186 4. Again , w e will not consider pro se claims that are
unsupported by argument or citation to legal authority, unless prejudicial error is obvious.
Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d at 22-23. We discern no obvious prejudicial error.
V.
Sigler contends that several procedural errors occurred during the district court
proceedings and seeks reversal on those grounds. First, Sigler argues that the district court
failed to provide him a formal complaint and to inform him of the charges against him. “A
citation must be issued for petty misdemeanors and misdemeanors not punishable by
incarceration.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 6.01, subd. 1(c). In the case of a release on a citation
instead of arrest, a citation “must contain the summons and complaint.” Id., subd. 4(a); see
Minn. R. Crim. P. 2.01, subd. 1 (setting forth the contents of a complaint “except as
modified” by rule 6.01, subdivision 4). Here, the officer released Sigler with a citation ,
which contained the date, time, location, and nature of the offense (including the applicable
statute), as well as information regarding how to pay or contest the fine . Sigler does not
persuade us that the district court erred by failing to provide a more formal complaint such
that he is entitled to relief on appeal . See Minn. R. Crim. P. 31.01 (“Any error that does
not affect substantial rights must be disregarded.”).
Moreover, Sigler’s argument that he was not informed of the nature of the charges
is refuted by the record, which shows that his citation contained that information. In
addition, Sigler made filings prior to trial indicating that he understood the charge. And

8
on the day of trial, the district court informed Sigler of the charge on the record. Sigler did
not indicate that he was unprepared to proceed with trial. Indeed, he made legal arguments
regarding the charged offense in his closing argument. We discern no reversible error. See
id.
Sigler next argues that he was denied pretrial hearings and a jurisdictional hearing .
Sigler does not offer any legal authority or argument in support of that assertion . We
discern no obvious prejudicial error. See Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d at 22-23.
Lastly, Sigler argues that he was denied the opportunity to provide an opening
statement at trial, even though he did not object to the form of the proceedings . District
courts have broad discretion in deciding matters of courtroom p rocedure. State v. Mems,
708 N.W.2d 526, 533 (Minn. 2006). This case involved a petty-misdemeanor court trial
with a single witness, neither party requested an opening statement, and Sigler provided a
closing argument . Under the circumstances , we discer n no structural error justifying
reversal. See State v. Everson, 749 N.W.2d 340, 347 (Minn. 2008) (stating that structural
errors “call into question the very accuracy and reliability of the trial process ” (quotations
omitted)). Assuming without deciding that a procedural error occurred, we discern no basis
to reverse because Sigler made numerous statements setting forth his legal defense during
the course of the trial, he reiterated those statements in his closing argument , and the
evidence of his guilt was strong. See id. at 349 (stating that we may review unobjected-to
procedural errors under a plain-error standard of review, which requires that the error affect
the defendant’s substantial rights).

9
In sum, Sigler has not established that he is entitl ed to relief based on procedural
error.
VI.
Sigler complains that the district court judge refused to answer when he asked if the
district court was a “court of common law” or if the matter constituted an “administrative
proceeding.” Sigler provides no legal authority or argument to support his assertion that
the district court was obligated to answer that question. Nonetheless, the district court
succinctly answered Sigler’s question, informing him that it was a district court in
Minnesota. We discern no obvious prejudicial error in the district court’s response. See
Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d at 22-23.
Sigler also asserts that the district court judge violated his oath by failing to follow
appellate precedent, but he does not allege any specific misapplication of the law or support
his assertion with legal argument or citation to authority. Again, we discern no obvious
prejudicial error and, therefore, no basis for relief. See id.
VII.
Sigler contends that the prosecutor incorrectly characterized him as a sovereign
citizen during closing arguments. The record indicates that the prosecutor was referring to
Sigler’s “sovereign citizen argument,” and not to Sigler himself. Indeed, Sigler referenced
sovereign citizenship in his pretrial filings.
Sigler objected to the prosecutor’s statement. We review objected -to prosecutorial
misconduct to determine whether the conduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Dobbins, 725 N.W.2d 492, 506 (Minn. 2006). We are not persuaded that the

10
prosecutor’s statement constitutes error. Moreover, even if it did, there is no ground for
reversal. The state presented overwhelming evidence that Sigler drove ten miles over the
speed l imit. The prosecutor’s brief characterization of Sigler’s defense during closing
argument surely did not affect the verdict. The prosecutor’s statement was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
VIII.
Lastly, Sigler asks this court to consider a claim regarding the garnishment of funds
from his bank account. The state moved to strike one of Sigler’s submissions related to
that claim. Sigler did not raise his garnishment claim in the district court. We generally
will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d
128, 134 (Minn. 2007), and we decline to do so here.
In his reply brief, Sigler asks this court to consider his claim because forcing him to
file “another appeal” would cause him financial hardship. The lack of a separate appeal is
not a mere technicality. Sigler’s garnishment claim relies on facts not in the record. F or
example, he claims that the Minnesota Department of R evenue took money from his
account, but we cannot decide the truth of that assertion. We are not a fact-finding court.
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC, 844 N.W.2d 528, 532 (Minn. App. 2014).
Because we decline to consider Sigler’s garnishment claim, we deny as moot the
state’s motion to strike. See Drewitz v. Motorwerks, Inc., 728 N.W.2d 231, 233 n.2 (Minn.
2007) (denying as moot motion to strike because challenged material was not relied upon).
Affirmed; motion denied.