| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0572State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Sequoyah James Bosto, Appellant. LANSING, Judge Before sentencing, Sequoyah Bosto moved to withdraw his guilty plea to second-degree intentional murder. The district court denied Bosto's plea-withdrawal motion. On appeal, Bosto makes two arguments. First, he argues that his motion should have been granted because his plea agreement was contingent on Bosto and another defendant accepting the same plea. Second, he argues that he established a "fair and just" reason for withdrawal. Because Bosto's contingent plea agreement was valid and the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. A07-0575 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. David Isaiah Grady, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant David Grady claims entitlement to a new trial following his conviction as an accomplice after the fact to first-degree murder. He contends that the district court erroneously conducted an in camera hearing before denying his discovery motion and that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument. Because appellant has failed to establish that he was denied access to relevant evidence and because the only questionable argument the prosecutor made during summation was not prejudicial, we affirm. A07-0710 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Carl W. McPhillips, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Carl McPhillips challenges the district court order finding that he consented to an officer's search of items in his car and denying his motion to suppress the fruits of that search. Because the findings on the issue of consent are not clearly erroneous, we affirm. A07-0717 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Scott Michael Steele, Appellant. PORITSKY, Judge Appellant challenges his convictions of first-degree aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2006), and first-degree burglary, Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(a)-(c) (2006), arguing that the district court erred when it ruled that the state could impeach him with evidence of his prior convictions if he were to testify. In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant argues that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective and (2) the evidence is insufficient. We affirm. A07-0728 Jeffrey Alan LaFontaine, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's order sustaining his driver's license revocation, maintaining that an informant's tip to the police did not possess sufficient indicia of reliability to justify the stop of his vehicle. In addition, appellant argues that the officers impermissibly expanded the scope of the traffic stop. Because we conclude that the district court did not err in its determinations that the traffic stop was based on reasonable articulable suspicion and the officers' conduct during the stop was proper, we affirm. A07-0843 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kurt Alan Kluessendorf, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for two incidents involving his five-year-old neighbor, A.M.L. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting out-of-court statements made by A.M.L. to her mother and by allowing the jury to review A.M.L.'s videotaped statement twice during deliberations. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm on those issues. Appellant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We find that there is sufficient record evidence to support appellant's conviction of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and affirm that conviction. But because the evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a second incident occurred, we reverse and remand for vacation of the conviction of the other count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. And because it is unclear from the record before us whether appellant was formally convicted of the two counts of the lesser-included offense of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, we also remand for vacation of any convictions entered on those counts. A07-1039 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Barbara Jean Walker, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Following her conviction of two counts of controlled-substance crime, appellant challenges the denial of her motion for a downward dispositional sentencing departure, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not adequately considering the fact that appellant has terminal lung cancer requiring ongoing chemotherapy treatment. Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. A07-1672 Marlowe Brooks, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his fourth petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he is entitled to an order vacating an unlawful sentence imposing restitution. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion by holding that his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas is procedurally barred. Because appellant's sentence is not unlawful and his plea-withdrawal claim has previously been decided, we affirm. A07-2035 In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. L. B. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant challenges a district court decision certifying him for prosecution as an adult on an aggravated-robbery charge. Appellant argues that the six public-safety factors applied to determine if public safety weighs for or against certification weigh against certification in his case. We affirm. A07-2136 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jessica Lou Zielske, Appellant. COLLINS, Judge Appellant Jessica Lou Zielske challenges her petty-misdemeanor conviction of failure to reduce speed in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 3(a) (2006), arguing that (1) the statute under which she was convicted is unconstitutionally vague and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction. Because appellant challenges the constitutionality of the statute for the first time on appeal, we decline to address that issue conclusively. And because the evidence, consisting of the trooper's testimony and a videotape of the incident taken from the dashboard of the trooper's squad, reasonably supports the district court's determination that appellant failed to drive at an appropriate reduced speed when passing the squad, we affirm. A07-1291 Seraphina Richards, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Joan Fabian, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge Appellant challenges, by writ of habeas corpus, the commissioner of the Department of Corrections' determination that her confinement should be extended for 20 days after a finding that appellant made false allegations against a prison staff member. Appellant argues that the commissioner improperly charged her with the offense without corroborating evidence, used the wrong standard to evaluate the evidence, and denied her due process. She also argues that the discipline constituted cruel and unusual punishment, that she was entitled to a district court evidentiary hearing, and that the district court erred when it did not allow her to submit a reply to the state's return of the writ. Because appellant's arguments lack merit, 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. |
