| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-0192, A07-0705State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Juan Carlos Kennedy, Appellant and Juan Carlos Kennedy, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. ROSS, Judge Juan Kennedy appeals from his conviction of and sentence for one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of kidnapping for sexually assaulting his girlfriend and holding her against her will in the hotel room where they were living. Kennedy contends that the evidence supports neither the conviction for kidnapping nor the enhanced sentence the district court imposed. He also argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude that Kennedy has waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his conviction of kidnapping because he stipulated to facts and agreed to present his case in a Lothenbach proceeding. We hold that the facts also support the district court's determination that aggravating factors warrant an upward departure, that the prosecutor did not commit misconduct, and that Kennedy was not denied his right to effective counsel. We therefore affirm. A07-0292 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Steven Harold Anderson, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge A Clay County jury found Steven Harold Anderson guilty of theft by swindle and theft by false representation because he deceived Pamela Costello into providing him with ,000 in cash, approximately ,000 in charges to her credit card, and more than 0 in charges to her cellular-telephone account. The state's evidence portrayed an elaborate scheme in which Anderson convinced Costello that he was an undercover federal agent sent to protect her and her family from becoming embroiled in an investigation of the Clay County Sheriff, who was a relative of Costello's. Anderson appeals, making four arguments: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction because his crimes were committed outside the state of Minnesota; (2) Clay County was an improper venue for trial, and the district court improperly instructed the jury on venue; (3) the district court erroneously overruled his Batson objection; and (4) the district court erroneously declined to conduct an in camera review of Costello's Clay County personnel file. We conclude that there was no error with respect to any of these issues and, thus, affirm. A07-0349 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Melissa Ann Mathre, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges her convictions of fourth-degree assault and obstructing legal process, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a prior felony assault conviction and by failing to give a requested jury instruction. Appellant also contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument. We affirm. A07-0531 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Colleen Louise Rieck, Appellant. LANSING, Judge Colleen Rieck entered a negotiated plea of guilty to six counts of theft by swindle, waived her right to a jury determination of sentence-enhancement factors, and received the negotiated upward durational departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. In this sentencing appeal, Rieck challenges the validity of two of the three factors that supported the upward departure for a major economic offense and argues that the prosecutor engaged in improper sentence manipulation in charging seven offenses rather than three. Because the facts and the law establish that the major-economic-offense factors are valid and because the prosecutor's charging process did not impermissibly manipulate Rieck's sentence, we affirm. A07-0722 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Peter Alexander Zagrzebski, Appellant. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's decision at trial that he could be impeached with a prior felony conviction if he chose to testify and the district court's refusal to grant his motion for a downward dispositional departure of his sentence after he was convicted. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in making either of those decisions, we affirm. A07-0762 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Omari Thomas, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, arguing that he did not (1) knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial or (2) validly waive his right to testify. We affirm. A07-0771 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Darnell Lee Anderson, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Darnell Lee Anderson challenges his conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the handgun seized following a search of his residence because (1) the warrant application did not establish probable cause; and (2) an initial warrantless entry tainted the officers' subsequent seizure of the handgun. We affirm. A07-0822 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Leonel Zamora Olveda, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a conviction of first-degree aggravated robbery, appellant Leonel Zamora Olveda argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to prove that the force he used against the victim was intended to overcome the victim's resistance to or compel the victim's acquiescence in the taking or carrying away of his wallet, and (2) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by misstating the law. We affirm. A07-0921 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Rosco Demar Lewis, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge On appeal from convictions of aggravated robbery in the first degree and attempted aggravated robbery in the first degree, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the plea-hearing testimony of his alleged accomplice because the plea-hearing testimony constitutes inadmissible hearsay and its admission violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. We affirm. A07-1018 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jary Glenn Goodrich, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Following remand from this court and resentencing by the district court, appellant challenges his sentence, arguing that he was denied due process of law at resentencing because the district court did not, sua sponte, order an examination of his mental competency under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01, subd. 2. Appellant also raises several additional arguments in his pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. A07-1099 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Darryl K. Brown, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of felony theft, arguing that the prosecutor committed misconduct constituting reversible error. Appellant also challenges the portion of his sentence ordering restitution. Because the prosecutor did not commit misconduct, we affirm appellant's conviction. Because appellant failed to timely challenge the restitution order, we affirm the sentence. A07-1111 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Bradley William Ornes, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge On appeal from his convictions of and sentences for first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty, that he did not validly waive his right to a jury determination of the aggravating sentencing factors, that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to an upward durational departure, and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a change of venue. We disagree and affirm. A07-1210 Brian R. Backstrom, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent. MINGE, Judge On appeal, appellant driver argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the results of appellant's breath test, claiming that respondent failed to establish the reliability of the test. We affirm. A07-1539 Reggie Griffin, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his pro se petition for postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence violates the constitutional principle articulated in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. A08-0066 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Latell Jerome Chaney, Appellant TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Latell Jerome Chaney, who was found guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal damage to property and two counts of second-degree assault, challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a mistrial. Because we conclude that the jury's access to a police report that was never admitted into evidence did not constitute structural error but was prejudicial, we reverse and remand for a new trial. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
