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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-1263

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Charles Yovontre Powell,
Appellant.

Filed June 8, 2020
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Sherburne County District Court
File No. 71-CR-18-461

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

Kathleen A. Heaney, Sherburne County Attorney, George R. Kennedy, Assistant County
Attorney, Elk River, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Ap pellate Public Defender, Melissa Sheridan, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decide d by Worke, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
During a hearing regarding an alleged vi olation of prison rules at the St. Cloud
Correctional Facility, appellant Charles Yovontre Powell bega n acting out of control.

2
Powell said “I’m still going to spit on you,” and then spat on the hearing officer. After
being convicted of fourth-degree assault, Powell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the district court’s determination that he actually spat on the hearing officer. In
his pro se supplemental brief, Powell challe nges the lack of testing of the physical
evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
On January 25, 2018, appellant Charle s Yovontre Powell appeared in the
hearing-room office of the St. Cloud Correcti onal Facility regarding an alleged violation
of the prison’s rules. Powell appeared before Sergeant Deppa for a waiver-offer hearing.1
Powell declined to sign the offer and beca me violent and angry. Powell swore at
Sergeant Deppa and threatened to spit on him.
Sergeant Deppa attempted to de-escalat e the situation, but was unsuccessful.
Sergeant Deppa contacted the segregation staff and asked them to return Powell to his cell.
Powell said “I’m still going to spit on you,” and then spat on Sergeant Deppa. Another
officer who responded to the call for assistance observed Powell spit on Sergeant Deppa.
The sergeant then radioed that he had been assaulted, left the hearing-room office, and went
to the emergency room to get evaluated. After hearing Sergeant Deppa’s radio call for
assistance, an investigator with the Department of Corrections immediately met with
Sergeant Deppa. The investigator observed areas on Sergeant Deppa’s uniform that looked

1 When an offender is accused of violating th e prison’s rules, a hear ing officer can offer
the offender an o pportunity to admit the infraction, wa ive their right to a hearing, and
accept a penalty. If the offender declines the waiver offer, the matter proceeds to a hearing.

3
like they had a substance simi lar to spit or saliva on them . The investigator took
photographs to document this observation.
The investigator also met with Powell an d asked if he spat on Sergeant Deppa.
Powell responded: “What happened happened.” Powell also told the investigator: “I did
what I did[,]” and when asked to elaborate, he stated: “You know what I did. I ain’t got to
say it. What happened happened.” Powell al so told the investigator “[w]hat you all say
happened happened.”
Powell was charged with fourth-degree assa ult for intentionally transferring bodily
fluid onto a corrections officer. Minn. Stat. § 609.2231, subd. 3(2) (2016). Powell waived
his right to a jury trial, and the matter was trie d to the district court. The district court
found Powell guilty of fourth-d egree assault and sentenced him to a year-and-a-day in
prison to run consecutively to the sentence for which he is currently incarcerated. This
appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Powell argues that the state failed to prov e beyond a reasonable doubt that he spat
on Sergeant Deppa. When an element of the offense is supported by direct evidence, this
court’s review is limited to analyzing the record to determine whether the evidence, when
viewed in the light most favorable to the co nviction, is sufficient to have allowed the
fact-finder to reach the verdict that it did. State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016).
This court must assume that 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).

4
Powell’s conviction was suppor ted by sufficient direct ev idence. Sergeant Deppa
testified that Powell threatened to spit on him, and then sp at on him. The officer who
responded to the disturbance testified that he saw Powell spit on Sergeant Deppa.
Photographs taken by the inves tigator show a white substance on the front of Sergeant
Deppa’s uniform. The investigator also testif ied that Powell told her: “What you all say
happened happened.”
Powell argues that due to the length of time between the assault and when the
investigator took the photos of Sergeant Deppa’s uniform, 2 the district court should not
have found the officers’ testimony credible. We disagree. First, “[t]he assessment of a
witness’s credibility is exclusively the province of the [fact-finder].” State v. McCray ,
753 N.W.2d 746, 754 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted). Second, as discussed above, the
testimony of Sergeant Deppa, the responding officer, and the investigator directly supports
the district court’s determination that Powell spat on Sergeant Deppa.
Pro se Issue
In his pro se supplemental brief, Powell asserts, without citation to relevant
authority, that his conviction should be reve rsed because the saliva on Sergeant Deppa’s
uniform was not DNA tested. This argument, however, is forfeited. State v. Taylor ,
869 N.W.2d 1, 22 (Minn. 2015) (stating that arguments in a pro se supplemental brief not

2 Powell asserts that over an hour elapsed be tween the assault and the photographing of
Sergeant Deppa’s uniform. However, the inves tigator testified that she “immediately”
went to meet with Sergeant Deppa after hearing his radio for assistance. Also, the district
court did not make a finding regarding the tim ing of when the phot ographs were taken,
stating only that the meeting between Se rgeant Deppa and the interviewer occurred
“[l]ater.”

5
supported by argument or citation to legal authority are deemed waived unless prejudicial
error is obvious on mere inspection).
Affirmed.