| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0760State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Joseph Mathias Osowski, Appellant. HARTEN, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of and sentence for a misdemeanor ordinance violation of being improperly clothed in a public park, arguing that the district court committed plain error in failing to advise appellant on the record of his right to remain silent and that the district court's condition of probation requiring appellant to be assessed for sex-offender treatment was unreasonable, inappropriate, and not justified by the facts of the offense. We affirm. = = = = A07-0553 Gary Michael Crawford, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. JOHNSON, Judge In 2000, Gary Michael Crawford was sentenced to life in prison after a Hennepin County jury found that he had kidnapped and raped a woman in the front seat of her car in the parking lot of a Bloomington restaurant. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence. In 2006, Crawford filed a postconviction petition in which he argued that (1) the district court erroneously admitted evidence of three prior incidents in which he engaged in conduct similar to the charged offense, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for kidnapping, and (3) the consecutive sentence for the kidnapping conviction was improper. The district court denied the petition on each ground, and Crawford reiterates his arguments on appeal. We conclude that there was no error at his trial or his sentencing hearing and no error in the district court's denial of his postconviction petition and, therefore, affirm. = = = = A07-0540 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Willie Lee Greenwade, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Willie Lee Greenwade challenges the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to the offense of terroristic threats, Minn. Stat. § 609.713, subd. 1 (2004). Appellant alleges that he was coerced into pleading guilty because he was being abused in jail and that his plea was not voluntarily made because he was not taking his medication for paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the plea hearing. Because both of these alleged bases for plea withdrawal are directly contradicted by evidence appellant offered at his plea hearing, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's plea withdrawal motion, and affirm. = = = = A07-0429 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Tony C. Perry, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of a fifth-degree violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1) (2006), on the ground that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence of drugs found on his person during an investigatory stop. Appellant contends that the police lacked reasonable articulable suspicion to support his seizure. Alternatively, appellant argues that even if the seizure was proper, the expansion of the scope of the seizure lacked justification. Because we conclude that the seizure that led to discovery of the drugs was improper, we reverse and remand. = = = = A07-0047 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Alden Fairbanks, Jr., Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Alden Fairbanks, Jr. challenges his conviction of felon in possession of a firearm, reckless discharge of a firearm, terroristic threats, and fourth-degree criminal damage to property, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Appellant further argues he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court gave a no-adverse-inference instruction to the jury without obtaining appellant's consent on the record. Because the jury could have reasonably concluded that appellant was guilty of the offenses with which he was charged and because the jury instruction did not result in prejudicial error, we affirm. = = = = A07-0042 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Patrick J. Modtland, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Patrick Modtland was convicted by a jury of possession of theft tools. His primary claim of error is directed at jury instructions that specifically mentioned a flashlight and screwdrivers as the tools allegedly possessed; he contends that the court should have permitted the jury to decide whether these tools constituted a "device" or "instrumentality" within the meaning of the governing statute. We remand for a sentence correction, but because appellant has failed to show the district court's instruction was erroneous or that there is merit in additional claims of error, we otherwise affirm. = = = = A07-0030 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Idris A. Bengazi, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Idris Bengazi challenges his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, contending that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm. = = = = A06-2439 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brandon K. Benson, Appellant. ROSS, Judge Brandon Benson appeals from his convictions of and sentence for domestic assault by strangulation and fifth-degree assault. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of past domestic abuse and by ruling that the state could introduce four felony convictions to impeach Benson if he chose to testify. He also contends that the district court erroneously convicted him both of domestic assault by strangulation and fifth-degree assault because the latter is a lesser included offense of the former. We hold that the district court acted within its discretion in making its evidentiary rulings. But because fifth-degree assault is a lesser included offense of domestic assault by strangulation, we reverse Benson's conviction of fifth-degree assault. The district court's judgment is otherwise affirmed. = = = = A06-2388 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Shane T. Bramer, Appellant. SCHELLHAS, Judge On appeal from his convictions of first-degree burglary, fifth-degree assault, and trespassing after trial by jury, appellant argues that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel admitted elements of one of the crimes charged and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct when he referred to appellant as a "vigilante." Because appellant acquiesced in his counsel's trial strategy and because we find no prosecutorial misconduct, we affirm. = = = = A06-2346 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Damon Moore, Appellant. ROSS, Judge Damon Moore appeals from his conviction of failure to register as a predatory sex offender. Moore was convicted of failing to register because he did not notify law enforcement authorities at least five days before moving from his primary address, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 243.166, subdivision 3(b), and of failing to return any of the annual address-verification forms sent to him, in violation of section 243.166, subdivision 4(e)(2). Moore argues that the state lacks jurisdiction because the alleged offenses did not occur in Minnesota. He contends that the state's prosecution contravenes his rights under the state and federal constitutions. He also maintains that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. Because an element of Moore's failure to register occurred in Minnesota, the state's exercise of jurisdiction is not unconstitutional. We also hold that there was sufficient evidence to convict Moore of failing to notify law enforcement authorities of his new address. But because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support Moore's conviction of failing to return the annual address-verification forms sent to his address, we reverse that conviction. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. = = = = A06-2331 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress and that his conviction must be reversed because (1) the police officer illegally stopped appellant; (2) the police officer exceeded the scope of a lawful stop; and (3) the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest appellant. Because the police officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify appellant's stop, the officer's actions were not unreasonable, and the officer had probable cause sufficient to justify appellant's arrest, we affirm. = = = = A06-2317 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Timothy K. Ueland, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant Timothy Ueland challenges his conviction of terroristic threats on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and the prosecutor improperly attacked his character during his closing argument. Appellant asserts that both errors resulted in prejudice denying his right to a fair trial and asks this court to reverse his conviction. We affirm. = = = = A06-2283 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Richard Reuel Womack, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal from convictions of first-degree controlled-substance crime, conspiracy to commit controlled-substance crime, and child endangerment, appellant argues that (1) the state failed to corroborate accomplice testimony, (2) the district court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence of appellant's various prior bad acts, and (3) the district court committed prejudicial error in instructing the jury. We reverse. = = = = A06-2016 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brent W. Peterson, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges his convictions of theft by swindle, arguing that (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction of count one, and (2) the jury instruction on the elements of a theft-by-swindle offense was erroneous. We affirm. = = = = A06-1707 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Joseph Laverne Pisano, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Joseph Laverne Pisano challenges his conviction of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; and (2) it was an abuse of the district court's discretion to deny appellant's motion to admit reverse-Spreigl evidence relating to alleged alternative perpetrators. We affirm. = = = = A06-1575 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Steven E. Jahnke, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Steven E. Jahnke was convicted of one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his posttrial motion, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial or a Schwartz hearing based on evidence of alleged jury misconduct. Appellant also argues that the district court deprived appellant of his right to present a complete defense by excluding the testimony of his proposed expert witness. We affirm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
