| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-0755Ricky Wright, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his postconviction petition. The petition sought to set aside his guilty plea on the grounds that (1) the district court impermissibly injected itself in the plea-negotiation process; and (2) appellant had ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. A06-1913 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronald B. Petrin, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge Following a court trial, appellant Ronald B. Petrin was found guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced under Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 4 (Supp. 2005), to a term of life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of two prior sex offenses as Spreigl evidence because the prior offenses were not sufficiently similar to the charged offense to qualify as modus operandi evidence and because admitting the evidence influenced appellant's decision to waive a jury trial; (2) the district court committed plain error under State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 304 (Minn. 2006), by admitting testimonial hearsay contained in a lab report in violation of his right to confrontation; (3) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by coaching a key witness and attempting to suppress exculpatory testimony; and (4) the district court erred by denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. A06-1961 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Maia D. Ware, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from her conviction of four counts of identity theft, appellant argues that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury on the defense of duress; (2) she was prejudiced by the instruction; (3) the instruction interfered with the jury's power of lenity; and (4) she was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm. A06-2386 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Crawford Collier, Appellant. D E C I S I O N I. Collier challenges the sufficiency of the evidence . . .. Identification presents a question of fact, which is determined by the jury. II. Collier also argues that he was deprived of a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. ... Having concluded that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct, we next consider whether such misconduct deprived Collier of a fair trial. ... A prosecutor has an affirmative obligation to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial "no matter how strong the evidence of guilt." ... Because we cannot conclude that the prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse Collier's conviction and remand for a new trial. A06-2452 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Anthony Jerome Anderson, Appellant. LANSING, Judge A jury found Anthony Anderson guilty of second-degree assault of a security guard at a nightclub. In this appeal from conviction, Anderson contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. Because the record does not support Anderson's claim that his lawyer's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness that affected the outcome of the trial and because the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction, we affirm. A07-0113 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jermaine Perry, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a conviction of motor-vehicle theft, appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offense and (2) the district court erred in allowing the state to introduce evidence of two prior felony drug convictions for impeachment purposes. We affirm. A07-0350 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jimmy Wade Hollins, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's pretrial order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his impounded vehicle. Appellant also challenges his conviction of being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm as unsupported by sufficient evidence. We affirm and grant respondent's motions to strike portions of appellant's briefs and appendices. A07-600 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Troy L. Bruce, Appellant. Filed May 13, 2008 Reversed WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's revocation of his probation, arguing that he did not violate a condition of his probation and that even if he did, the district court failed to make the necessary findings required by State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980). We reverse. A07-0627 Mitchell Gabrelcik, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge This pro se appeal is from a district court order denying appellant Mitchell Gabrelcik's postconviction petition. Appellant was convicted on January 6, 2000, of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subds. 1(b), 2 (1998). Appellant filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his challenge to evidence procured by means of a search warrant. He now argues that the district court made numerous errors, that he was represented by ineffective trial and appellate counsel, and that new exculpatory evidence mandates a new trial. Because appellant's claims are procedurally barred or lack merit, we affirm. A07-0741 Jason Bradly Bartlette, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge In this postconviction challenge to a 2005 conviction and sentence for first-degree burglary, Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(a) (2004), and solicitation of juveniles, Minn. Stat. § 609.494, subds. 1, 2(b) (2004), appellant Jason Bartlette argues that the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea. He claims that the court improperly imposed executed, rather than stayed, prison sentences after he failed to appear for sentencing, even though his plea agreement allowed the court to do so if he failed to appear for sentencing. Appellant also argues that before imposing executed sentences, the court should have been required to make findings consistent with State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Minn. 1980), which requires a district court to make certain findings before revoking probation. We conclude that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's requests because appellant has not shown that his plea was not voluntary or intelligent for purposes of demonstrating manifest injustice in the entry of the plea and because Austin does not apply to sentencing determinations. We therefore affirm. A07-0765 James Antoine McGhee, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Terry Carlson, et al., Respondents. WORKE, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to restore his good-time credit. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. A07-0799 Baron M. Jones, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. KLAPHAKE, Judge In this pro se postconviction appeal, Baron Montero Jones argues that there were "structural errors" in his trial that mandate reversal of his conviction. Appellant claims that the jury instructions given by the district court demonstrated the court's bias and partiality; the prosecutor committed misconduct; and appellant's counsel was ineffective. Appellant entered a college dormitory room on October 4, 2003, and had nonconsensual sexual contact with a victim, who was nonresponsive because of alcohol consumption. After appellant was convicted of first-degree burglary under Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2002), and third-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.344, subd. 1(d) (2002), the district court imposed a 72-month executed sentence. This court upheld appellant's conviction in his direct appeal. Because appellant's claims either were known or should have been known at the time of his direct appeal, and because the evidence is sufficient to support the postconviction court's denial of appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we affirm. A07-0937 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Chad Allen Rourke, Respondent. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant State of Minnesota challenges a sentence imposed after a Blakely trial. The state argues that the district court erred when it: (1) ruled that the aggravating factor of "particular cruelty" is unconstitutionally vague for lack of a clear, objective statutory definition; (2) refused to submit to the jury the aggravating factor of "abuse of a position of power" because it is not enumerated in the sentencing guidelines; and (3) refused to define the aggravating factor of "particular vulnerability" to include vulnerability created by repeated attacks and intimidation, and extreme and escalating ongoing violence. We reverse the district court's ruling that the aggravating factor of "particular cruelty" is unconstitutionally vague and hold that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the aggravating factor of "abuse of a position of power" could not be submitted to the jury and in refusing to define the aggravating factor of "particular vulnerability" to include vulnerability created by repeated attacks and intimidation, and extreme and escalating ongoing violence. We remand for a new Blakely trial and resentencing. A07-1219 Shah Aziz, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant-inmate challenges a district court's denial of his "Motion to Clarify Terms of Sentence and/or for an Evidentiary Hearing," arguing that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before the department of corrections (DOC) requires him to participate in the Intensive Supervised Release (ISR) program. We affirm. A07-1248 Brent Anthony Ficocello, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license under the implied-consent law, arguing that the officer's seizure of him was unconstitutional. Because we conclude that the emergency exception applies and that the officer's conduct in seizing appellant was reasonable under that exception, we affirm. A07-1305 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gerald Leonard Roy, Appellant. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant asserts that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas at his original sentencing when the prosecutor's plea offer was rescinded. In the alternative, he argues that the plea agreement should have been specifically enforced. Respondent argues that it was within the district court's discretion to deny specific performance of the plea agreement. Because the district court provided appellant with an opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas and it was not an abuse of discretion to deny appellant's request for specific performance, we affirm. A07-1543 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert Mathison, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Robert Mathison pleaded guilty to the issuance of a dishonored check. He was sentenced to 50 months of imprisonment, which is an upward durational departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. Mathison appeals, arguing that his sentence is improper because the district court did not make findings of fact at the sentencing hearing to support the upward departure. We conclude that the district court stated reasons for the upward departure at the sentencing hearing and that the record justifies the stated reasons. Therefore, we affirm. A07-1621 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Natasha Janice Schweitzer, Respondent. WORKE, Judge On appeal from sentencing following a guilty plea for third-degree assault, the state argues that (1) the district court erred in finding that the plea agreement called for a sentencing recommendation, rather than an agreed-on executed sentence of 24 months; (2) the guilty plea and the plea agreement, which the district court had accepted, called explicitly for an agreed-upon sentence rather than a recommendation, and the district court, in rejecting the terms of the agreement, was required to allow either party to withdraw from the agreement; and (3) by not doing so the district court violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and acted contrary to public policy as well as basic principles of fairness and contract law. We affirm. A07-1839 In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.M.T. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant S.M.T. challenges an order issued by the district court following a hearing to revoke his Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ) probation, which was imposed based on separate adjudications for theft by swindle and theft of a motor vehicle. The district court found that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation contract, that his violations were intentional and inexcusable, but that revocation of his stayed 15-month sentence was not appropriate at this time. Rather, the court concluded that modification of appellant's out-of-home placement would serve public safety and appellant's best interests. The district court ordered appellant committed to the Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF) - Red Wing, and continued his EJJ probation until his 21st birthday. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to revoke appellant's EJJ probation and in modifying his placement, 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. |
