| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1782, A07-1330State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Blake Vick, Appellant, and Blake Thomas Vick, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from his conviction of two counts of aiding and abetting theft by swindle and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated forgery, appellant argues that (1) the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because the state failed to prove that he had any criminal intent when he asked his girlfriend to sign mortgage papers that he believed were valid; and (2) the district court erred in ordering him to pay ,404.22 in restitution, which represents the amount of the victim's attorney fees, because his actions did not directly cause that loss. Because the evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction and because the district court's restitution decision was not erroneous, we affirm. A07-0117 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Veronica Elana Mata-Woodruff, Appellant. KLAPHAKE, Judge Appellant Veronica Elana Mata-Woodruff appeals from her conviction for first-degree possession of a controlled substance. Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 2(1) (2004). Appellant argues that the district court erred by refusing to suppress evidence found on her person after a stop of the vehicle in which she was a passenger. She further argues that the district court violated her right to confrontation by admitting a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) laboratory report without supporting testimony from the analyst who prepared it. Because the police had reasonable and articulable suspicion of additional criminal activity that permitted expansion of the stop and pat searches of appellant, we affirm the district court's order denying suppression of evidence, but reverse and remand for a new trial based on the Confrontation Clause violation. A07-0265 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Devin C. Petersen, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Devin C. Petersen was arrested for driving while impaired after law enforcement officers found his car at the scene of a one-car accident and obtained a preliminary breath test from him showing an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Shortly after his arrest, Petersen refused a state trooper's request that he submit to a blood test. Later, however, during the booking process at the jail, Petersen changed his mind and told the trooper that he wished to submit to testing. The trooper said that it was too late and that Petersen was deemed to have refused testing. At trial on the charge of criminal refusal to submit to a chemical test, the district court prevented Petersen from introducing evidence about his change of mind after arriving at the jail. The jury found him guilty. Petersen argues that the district court erred by excluding the proffered evidence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm. A07-0455 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jason Coe Day, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction for aiding and abetting attempted first-degree murder, arguing that (1) he was both acquitted and convicted of the same charge, which resulted in a double-jeopardy violation and legally inconsistent verdicts, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and (3) when the jury asked a question regarding the law, the district court committed plain error by referring the jury to the instructions already given rather than providing additional instructions. We affirm. A07-0456 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Alexander Norwood, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Alexander Norwood challenges his conviction of felon in possession of a firearm, arguing that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he possessed a gun and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial. We affirm. A07-0463 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jay Joseph Woodruff, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Following a court trial, appellant Jay Joseph Woodruff was convicted on charges of first-degree burglary, fourth-degree assault, fifth-degree assault, and obstructing legal process, which arose from appellant's entry of a home without permission, physical altercation with the home's resident, and assault of a responding police officer. Appellant argues that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial by a nearly three-month delay. Because the delay (1) was caused by the unavailability of the state's witness, defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the judge; (2) was for good cause; and (3) did not violate appellant's constitutional right to a speedy trial even though he was then in custody, we affirm. A07-0533 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James William Graham, Appellant. ROSS, Judge Aristotle Piwowar and Christina Becker awoke and hurriedly forced the air conditioner from their bedroom window to crawl outside after a Molotov cocktail thrown into their living room ignited a fire that ultimately consumed their mobile home. James Graham appeals from his conviction of first-degree arson of a dwelling and an order for restitution. Graham argues that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it could not convict him based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, that the district court committed plain error by providing the jury with an informational jury-deliberation pamphlet, and that the district court abused its discretion by ordering restitution when the supporting affidavit was not sufficiently detailed. Because the eyewitness was not an accomplice and the witness's testimony was corroborated by other testimony, and because the jury pamphlet could not have prejudiced Graham's substantial rights, we affirm the conviction. Because we conclude that the restitution affidavit was sufficiently detailed, we also affirm the restitution order. A07-0537 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edwin Johnson, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of felony cruelty to an animal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support appellant's conviction and that any prosecutorial misconduct did not deny appellant his right to a fair trial, we affirm. A07-0541 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Chandan P. Hurd, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Following his conviction of first-degree assault and attempted second-degree murder, appellant challenges the admission of his prior conviction of forgery, which the state introduced at trial for impeachment purposes. Appellant argues that the district court's decision to admit the prior conviction without first holding an evidentiary hearing to determine its admissibility violated appellant's due-process right to a fair trial. In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. We affirm. A07-0598 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Travis Waters, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Travis Waters maintained 188 marijuana plants in his Itasca County trailer home. After receiving a tip from a confidential informant, a deputy sheriff gathered information to corroborate the tip and then obtained a warrant to search Waters's trailer home. The search revealed not only marijuana plants but also cocaine. Waters moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search, and the district court denied the motion. Following his conviction by a jury, Waters appeals, arguing that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the warrant application allegedly contained three misstatements and because there is no information in the warrant application concerning the reliability of the confidential informant. We affirm. A07-0601 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kraig Daniel Pettee, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant Kraig Pettee challenges his sentence on the ground that the district court's correction of a clerical error in the sentencing order is an impermissible increase in the length of his sentence. We affirm. A07-0644 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Zhiwei Wang, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of domestic assault, arguing that court-appointed language-translation services were deficient and denied him a fair trial and that the district court abused its discretion by excluding character testimony. We affirm. A07-0718 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gary Leroy Reynolds, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Gary Leroy Reynolds challenges his 360-month executed sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in departing from the guidelines' presumptive sentence. Because severe aggravating circumstances were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm. A07-0770 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kevin Daniel Nelson, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Appellant Kevin Nelson challenges his assault conviction, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to give jury instructions on voluntary intoxication and self-defense. We affirm. Jason Michael Vonderharr, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's decision sustaining the cancellation of his restricted driver's license for violating a requirement that he totally abstain from the use of alcohol. We affirm. A07-0991 In the Matter of the Welfare of: D.J.I., Juvenile, Appellant. ROSS, Judge D.J.I. appeals his juvenile-delinquency adjudication of fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that he had a sexual intent when he prevented his girlfriend of one week from leaving a room, stood over her with another boy and told her they were playing the "take-off-the-shirt game," and unclasped her bra. He also maintains that the district court violated his due process rights when it controlled the taking of testimony and limited the time for trial. Because we conclude that the district court received sufficient evidence to find that D.J.I. engaged in criminal sexual conduct and that the district court did not violate his due process rights, we affirm. A07-1299 Paige Suzanne Severinson, petitioner, Respondent, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant commissioner challenges the decision of the district court rescinding the revocation of respondent's driver's license. Appellant argues that the district court erred by concluding that the Hennepin County court system's scheduling policy for implied-consent hearings on petitions for judicial review (1) fails to comply with the timing requirement of Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(a) (2006) and (2) violated respondent's due-process right to prompt judicial review. We reverse. A07-1333 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Casey R. Jones, Appellant. HALBROOKS, Judge Appellant challenges his sentence on the ground that the district court abused its discretion by imposing upward durational sentences for appellant's convictions of check forgery, theft by check, and terroristic threats. We affirm. A07-1373 Lardell Wesley, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. HALBROOKS, Judge Following the district court's denial of his postconviction petition, appellant, pro se, challenges his three convictions of second-degree criminal sexual conduct on multiple grounds. Because we conclude that appellant's claims are barred based on his earlier direct appeal and/or do not merit relief, we affirm. A07-1436 Ronald L. Roner, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from the denial of his postconviction petition challenging his 2005 conviction for first-degree aggravated robbery and second-degree assault, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting the state's motion to preclude defense evidence of appellant's mental illness. Appellant argues that he had a constitutional right to present evidence of mental illness to show the "whole man" charged with the crime, and the limited defense evidence he sought to introduce was admissible under one of the exceptions to the general rule against admitting mental-illness evidence in the guilt phase of trial. Appellant also argues that the ruling violated his due-process right to explain his conduct to a jury. Because the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion and because appellant's right to testify was not violated, 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. |
