| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0135State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Abel Miramontes, Appellant. O P I N I O N PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from convictions of two counts of first-degree controlled-substance crime, appellant Abel Miramontes argues that the state's failure to disclose a law-enforcement agent's pretrial identification of him as a participant in a controlled drug purchase was a prejudicial discovery violation that requires reversal of his convictions. Because the state's failure to disclose the law-enforcement agent's pretrial identification was a prejudicial discovery violation, we reverse and remand. A07-0294 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Abdirahman Hassan Ali, Appellant. LANSING, Judge The Olmsted County Attorney charged Abdirahman Ali with fifth-degree controlled substance crime for possession of cathinone. Ali moved to suppress khat stems containing cathinone as the product of an unlawful search. At the contested omnibus hearing, the district court heard testimony on the circumstances surrounding the pat-down search that produced the khat stems but, in its written order, addressed only the issues of the seizure of Ali and the probable cause for the charge. Because neither the record of the omnibus hearing nor the district court's written order contains findings or a specific determination on the constitutionality of the search, we remand to the district court. A07-0480 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nathan Lund, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Nathan Lund was employed as a temporary substitute paraprofessional in a metro-area middle school and was charged with second-degree criminal sexual conduct after a seventh grader reported that he had inappropriately touched her while she was in the room he was supervising. See Minn. Stat. § 609.343, subd. 1(b) (2004) (making it crime to engage in sexual contact with person who is between 13 and 16 years of age and defendant is more than 48 months older and in position of authority). Appellant was convicted following a jury trial and granted a stay of imposition of sentence on a variety of probationary conditions, including payment of 0 in restitution to Anoka County Sexual Assault Committee. Because the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction and because appellant did not timely object to the award of restitution, we affirm. A07-0535 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Anthony John Soper, Appellant. ROSS, Judge A man who matches the general description of Anthony Soper, accompanied by a dog who matches the general description of Anthony Soper's dog, stole a bicycle from a garage about a mile from Anthony Soper's home. An eyewitness positively identified Soper as the burglar. Soper appeals from his conviction of first-degree burglary, arguing that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument by stating that Soper's alibi was "silly" and comparing it with a story that might be found in the National Enquirer. Because the prosecutor's comments do not constitute misconduct, we affirm Soper's conviction. A07-0588 State of Minnesota, Respondent. vs. Thomas W. Knutson, Appellant MINGE, Judge This appeal is from a conviction of driving while impaired by alcohol. Appellant argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence against him because he was not accorded a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel. We affirm. A07-0659 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brenda Kay Olson, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge On appeal following her conviction of conspiracy to commit fourth-degree controlled-substance offense, appellant Brenda Kay Olson argues that: (1) the district court abused its discretion by admitting character evidence and hearsay evidence; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct; and (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We affirm. A07-1030 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Vincent J. Hughes, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of failure to stop for a school-bus stop arm, arguing that the record does not show that his waiver of counsel was constitutionally valid. Because the record does not reflect that appellant was provided with sufficient information to support a conclusion that his waiver of counsel was intelligent and knowing, we reverse and remand for a new trial. A07-1058 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Christian Nathanial Franks, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge In this appeal from a conviction of terroristic threats, appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant also argues that the district court abused its discretion by (1) admitting evidence of his relationship with his former wife, the victim of the threat; and (2) declining to excuse jurors for bias. We affirm. A07-1217 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Anthony W. Carman, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge On appeal from the order revoking his probation, appellant Anthony W. Carman argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding that the need for confinement outweighed the policies favoring probation. Appellant also contends that the district court erred as a matter of law by not explicitly ruling on appellant's motion to modify his sentence. We affirm. A07-1396 James R. Bray, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. PETERSON, Judge In this implied-consent proceeding, appellant challenges the district court's finding that he refused to submit to a breath test. We affirm. A07-1536 Dale Samual Karoff, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from an order denying his postconviction petition challenging his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow a defense expert to testify; (2) the postconviction court erred in failing to rule on the defense-expert testimony issue at the postconviction hearing; and (3) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm. A07-1651 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Willie Ponder, Appellant. WORKE, Judge On appeal from the denial of his postconviction petition challenging his attempted-second-degree-murder conviction, appellant argues that his guilty plea was not voluntary and intelligent. We affirm. A07-0997 A07-1004 Richard Allen Frazier, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent, State of Minnesota, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge In these consolidated appeals, appellant challenges the district court's order sustaining the revocation of his driver's license and the subsequent driving while intoxicated (DWI) conviction, arguing that the arresting police officer did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop and detain him. Because the officer acted within the scope of his authority, we affirm. A07-1195 Brad Ronald Stevens, Appellant, vs. Cal R. Ludeman, Commissioner of Human Services, Respondent. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant, who is under an indeterminate commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program as a sexually dangerous person, challenges the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant asserts that because sex-offender treatment will not be provided until he forfeits his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and because there is insufficient evidence that he suffers from a mental disorder, his continued confinement is unconstitutional. 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. |
