| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1028State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Trayon Maurice Berry, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge In this postconviction appeal, Trayon Berry seeks to withdraw his 1998 guilty plea or to modify his sentence for a conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. At the time of his plea agreement, neither appellant's trial attorney nor the prosecutor informed him that he would be subject to a five-year conditional release term. He became aware of the conditional release requirement at his August 2002 probation violation hearing, when his probation was revoked and he received an 18-month executed sentence. Appellant argues that he did not understand that the term of conditional release would be added to his sentence until he was released from prison on supervised release. He asserts that imposition of that term violated his plea agreement. We affirm. = = = = A07-0739 Kofi Yeboah, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree and the district court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief. Appellant argues that the district court erred in admitting certain expert testimony and DNA evidence and that respondent committed prosecutorial misconduct in its closing argument. We affirm. = = = = A07-0511 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Bradley Paul Radichel, Appellant. ROSS, Judge On appeal from conviction of fourth-degree driving while impaired, Bradley Radichel argues that the breath test results revealing his alcohol concentration should have been suppressed because the supreme court has ruled that the 2003 version of the implied-consent statute violates a driver's right to due process. Because the unconstitutional provision in the 2003 implied-consent statute does not require the suppression of evidence obtained for use in a criminal prosecution, the district court did not err by denying Radichel's motion to suppress the results of his breath test, and we affirm the conviction. = = = = A07-0492 Elizer E. Darris, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. JOHNSON, Judge Elizer E. Darris is serving a 306-month sentence for second-degree intentional murder. In this postconviction action, he seeks a new trial or a reduced sentence on the ground that the jury's verdict is unclear as to whether he was found guilty of second-degree intentional murder or second-degree unintentional murder. The district court denied Darris's postconviction petition. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Darris's arguments were considered and resolved by the supreme court on direct appeal and that there is no lack of clarity in the jury's verdict. Therefore, we affirm. = = = = A07-0397 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Javier Ignacio Alejo, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Javier Alejo contends that his speedy-trial right was violated by a trial conducted 95 days after his demand and the district court's mere repetition of its original instruction failed to adequately address the deliberating jury's question. We affirm. = = = = A07-0331 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Henry James Davis, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle resulting in death, arguing that (1) his right to a speedy trial was violated; (2) the district court erred by not instructing the jury on "duress or necessity"; (3) the district court erred by failing to conduct an in camera review of appellant's statement to the Internal Affairs Unit of the police department before ordering its disclosure to the state; and (4) the district court erred in allowing the jury to simultaneously determine guilt and the presence of an aggravating sentencing factor. We affirm. = = = = A07-0206 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gerald Peter Haus, Appellant, Charles Louie Haus, Appellant. PORITSKY, Judge Appellants Gerald Peter Haus and Charles Louie Haus challenge the district court's pretrial evidentiary ruling and subsequent guilty verdict, arguing that (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence obtained as the result of an unconstitutional seizure; and (2) the evidence is not sufficient to support their convictions. Because appellants did not raise the issue of an unconstitutional seizure in the district court, we decline to reach that issue. But because the district court did not obtain a personal trial-rights waiver from each of the appellants before accepting their case for trial on stipulated facts, we reverse their convictions and remand for further proceedings. = = = = A07-0079 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Pedro Orlando Gonzalez Mejia, Appellant. SCHELLHAS, Judge On appeal from his convictions of first- and second-degree assault, appellant argues that the district court allowed testimonial hearsay evidence in violation of his right to confrontation and improperly allowed expert testimony. Because we conclude that the admission of the testimonial hearsay evidence was not prejudicial and that the admission of the expert testimony was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion, we affirm. = = = = A07-0029 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert Edward Workman, Appellant. PORITSKY, Judge Appellant challenges his convictions, arguing that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. We affirm. = = = = A06-2443 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Vandale A. Willis, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Challenging his three controlled substance convictions, appellant Vandale Willis contends that admission of an incriminating lab report violated his Confrontation Clause rights. We reverse and remand for a new trial. = = = = A06-2127 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James Martin, Appellant. LANSING, Judge A jury found James Martin guilty of illegal possession of a firearm and acquitted him of second-degree assault. Because the jury instructions, when combined with the district court's answer to a jury question, would permit the jury to find Martin guilty based only on the fact that a gun was kept in his house, we reverse Martin's conviction. But because the evidence was nonetheless sufficient to support a conviction, we remand for a new trial. = = = = A07-0896 Joseph Leander Rainer, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Department of Corrections, MCF-Faribault, et al., Respondents Below, Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge On appeal from a denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, appellant challenges the district court's determination that the commissioner of corrections did not abuse her discretion by denying his request for parole. Appellant argues that his constitutional right to due process was violated and that the commissioner violated the separation-of-powers doctrine. Because we conclude that appellant was not deprived of his due process rights and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his petition, 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. |
