| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-2334State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Lenard D. Wells, Appellant. Affirmed. Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr. Clay County District Court, Hon. Michael L. Kirk. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Lenard D. Wells challenges his convictions of first- and second-degree assault, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to exclude emergency room medical reports as a sanction for an alleged discovery violation and by excluding alternative perpetrator evidence as hearsay. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to sanction the prosecution or in excluding hearsay evidence, we affirm. A06-2256 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eugene D. Sandberg, Appellant. Affirmed in part and reversed in part . Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr. St. Louis County District Court, Hon. Mark A. Munger. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Eugene D. Sandberg challenges his conviction for interfering with an emergency call and two concurrent sentences imposed for that conviction and a fifth-degree assault conviction. Because appellant’s conviction for interfering with an emergency call is supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm that conviction, but because the trial court erred in imposing two sentences for conduct arising from a single behavioral incident, we reverse appellant’s sentence for fifth-degree assault. A06-2179 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Carl L. Richardson, Appellant. Affirmed. Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, Jr. Ramsey County District Court, Hon. William H. Leary, III. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Carl L. Richardson challenges his conviction of first-degree burglary, arguing that his identification by a one-person show-up was unduly suggestive and that the police violated his Miranda rights by failing to honor his assertion of his right to silence. Because we conclude that the identification was admissible under the totality of the circumstances and that the police did not violate appellant’s Miranda rights, we affirm. A06-2206 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey Burkhardt, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Roger M. Klaphake. Murray County District Court, Hon. David E. Christensen. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Jeffrey Burckhardt challenges his conviction for fifth-degree controlled substance offense (possession or cultivation of a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm) in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.025, subds. 1(2), 2(1) (2006), 609.11, subd. 5(a) (2006). He claims that (1) the prosecutor acted vindictively by adding the firearm enhancement charges after the district court granted appellant’s motion to dismiss more serious charges; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed firearms while growing marijuana; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to bifurcate the trial because evidence of firearms in his home was prejudicial when he admitted to growing marijuana but claimed that he did so to treat his glaucoma. We affirm because we conclude that the record does not support appellant’s claim that the firearm enhancement charges were added through prosecutorial vindictiveness; the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant possessed a firearm while committing the underlying controlled substance offenses; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to bifurcate the trial. A07-787 Vernon J. Bushey, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Affirmed. Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks. St. Louis County District Court, Hon. Gary J. Pagliaccetti. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his petition for postconviction relief on the ground that the five-year conditional-release portion of his sentence is unconstitutional. Because we conclude that the five-year conditional-release portion of appellant’s sentence is constitutional and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s postconviction petition, we affirm. A07-464 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Wynn D. Arvidson, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Terri J. Stoneburner. Dakota County District Court, Hon. Kathryn Davis Messerich. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree assault, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense. We affirm. A06-2344 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Arthur Alan Anderson, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Terri J. Stoneburner. Redwood County District Court, Hon. David W. Peterson. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his convictions of fourth-degree driving while impaired (DWI) and a violation of a restricted license. He also challenges the denial of his petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. A07-234 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gary Lee Johnson, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge David Minge. Pennington County District Court, Hon. Tamara Lynn Yon. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree driving-while-impaired (DWI) test refusal. Appellant contends that his conviction must be reversed because the district court failed to stay the proceedings pursuant to Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 813 after the Pennington County jury commissioner acknowledged that she did not comply with Minn. R. Gen. Pract. 806(e) and because the lack of a racially balanced jury pool denied him his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because appellant's claim under the rules was not asserted before the district court and because appellant does not show a violation of his constitutional right to a representative jury, we affirm. A06-2204 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Monique N. Alexander, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Kevin G. Ross. Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Robert M. Small. ROSS, Judge Monique Alexander appeals her conviction of theft by swindle for her involvement in a fraudulent money-order scheme. Alexander argues that the court committed reversible error when it instructed the jury to distinguish intent from motive and clarified that good motive alone is not a defense. She also contends that there was insufficient evidence of her intent to defraud. Because we conclude that the district court did not err when instructing the jury and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s determination of guilt, we affirm. FACTS A07-1251 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Scott Dean Rodahl, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Heidi S. Schellhas. Polk County District Court, Hon. Tamara Lynn Yon. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant challenges sentences imposed for three convictions. His primary argument is that the district court abused its discretion by departing from the sentencing guidelines. He argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing an upward-durational departure in his sentences and by imposing the sentences consecutive to a prior sentence after finding consecutive sentencing was presumptive under the guidelines. Concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that appellant presents no other basis for relief, we affirm. A06-2390 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nathaniel Black, Appellant. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judge Heidi S. Schellhas. Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Denise D. Reilly. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant challenges his convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the district court erroneously (1) admitted Spreigl evidence, (2) refused to instruct the jury as to the purpose of the Spreigl evidence, (3) admitted expert testimony, and (4) admitted evidence of appellant's prior convictions for sexual misconduct for impeachment purposes. Appellant also challenges his aggravated sentence, arguing that it was based on judicial fact-finding in violation of Blakely v. Washington. Because we conclude that the Spreigl evidence was admissible, the district court's refusal to instruct the jury about the purpose of the Spreigl evidence was not error, the admission of certain expert testimony was harmless error, and the admission of appellant's prior convictions for sexual misconduct for impeachment purposes was not error, we affirm appellant's conviction. But because we hold that the district court erred in its judicial fact-finding of the aggravating factor in violation of Blakely v. Washington, we reverse appellant's sentence and remand for resentencing. A07-941 Anthony L. Nelson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Reversed and remanded. Judge Francis J. Connolly. Scott County District Court, Hon. Mary Jean Theisen. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying him postconviction relief, arguing that his right to assistance of counsel was violated. Because the district court administrator failed to forward appellant’s postconviction petition to the public defender’s office as required by Minn. Stat. § 590.02, subd. 1(4) (2006), and appellant was never appointed a public defender, we agree, and reverse and remand so that appellant may be appointed counsel to assist him in bringing a petition for postconviction relief. A07-689 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Rocky Padilla, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Francis J. Connolly. Mower County District Court, Hon. Donald E. Rysavy. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of felony first-degree test refusal arguing that the approximately 23-hour gap between the time of his arrest and the initiation of the implied-consent advisory prevented him from having a reasonable opportunity to consult with an attorney. Because appellant was given an opportunity to contact an attorney before deciding to refuse the test and then chose not to contact an attorney, we affirm. A07-548 Timothy Lowell Millhouse, petitioner, Respondent, vs. State of Minnesota, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Gary L. Crippen.* Freeborn County District Court, Hon. John A. Chesterman. CRIPPEN, Judge Respondent Timothy Millhouse pleaded guilty in December 2005 to a charge of fourth-degree controlled substance crime. Minn. Stat. § 152.024, subds. 1(1), 3(a) (2004). One year after he was sentenced, the district court permitted him to withdraw his plea. The State of Minnesota appealed, arguing that respondent failed to show a manifest injustice that would permit withdrawal of the plea. Because respondent’s plea was neither voluntary nor intelligent, we conclude that withdrawal of the plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice and therefore affirm. A07-332 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brett Allen Goulet, Appellant. Affirmed. Judge Bertrand Poritsky.** Polk County District Court, Hon. Donald J. Aandal. PORITSKY, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for a downward dispositional departure on his sentence, arguing: (1) that the district court erred by failing to make any findings regarding the reason for denial; and (2) that the district court erred by concluding that there were no compelling circumstances warranting departure. We affirm. A07-240 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James J. Schmidt, Appellant. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. Judge Lawrence T. Collins.** Rice County District Court, Hon. Bernard E. Borene. COLLINS, Judge Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of first-degree controlled-substance crime -- manufacture of methamphetamine -- under Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 2a(a) (2004), and possession of substances with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under Minn. Stat. § 152.0262 (Supp. 2005). Because the evidence is insufficient to establish that appellant manufactured any amount of methamphetamine, we reverse his conviction of first-degree controlled-substance crime. But, because (a) appellant did not object to what became a midtrial amendment of the complaint to charge him with a new offense; (b) the jury was properly instructed on that charge; and (c) his defense was not hindered or adversely impacted, we affirm appellant’s conviction of possession of substances with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and remand for resentencing. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
