| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-1438State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Curt Trevor Rolland, Appellant. COLLINS, Judge Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation. We affirm. = = = = A07-1083 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Leon Richard Ketola, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Leon Richard Ketola entered an Alford-Goulette plea of guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree. Before he was sentenced, he moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion. Ketola appeals, arguing that his guilty plea was not intelligently made because he did not have a full understanding of the elements of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ketola's motion to withdraw his plea and, therefore, affirm. = = = = A07-0831 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Gary Eick, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the denial of his motion for a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to consider and make a ruling on the record analyzing the Trog factors. Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A07-0792 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Delaney Ledell Johnson, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm obtained from an inventory search of his vehicle because the officer unlawfully expanded the scope of that search. Because the evidence was lawfully obtained, we affirm. = = = = A07-0714 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jaime Tirado Hernandez, Appellant. LANSING, Judge After a jury trial, Jaime Tirado Hernandez was convicted of second-degree murder and second-degree assault for the benefit of a gang. On appeal, Hernandez disputes the admissibility of identification evidence, an inculpatory letter, two prior convictions, and a number of out-of-court statements. In addition, Hernandez argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by providing a personal opinion about witness credibility in closing argument and that the district court improperly calculated his sentence. We conclude that the district court properly ruled on the evidentiary questions, that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and that the sentence was properly calculated. Accordingly, we affirm. = = = = A07-0708 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mark Brian LaFon, Appellant. JOHNSON, Judge Since 1966, Leland LaFon has owned a home on the shore of Cross Lake in Crow Wing County. The property includes a year-round, wooden boat dock that extends from one corner of his shoreline property into the lake. The dock, which has remained in the same position since 1966, does not project from the shoreline in a perpendicular manner but, rather, at a rather acute angle so that it is located somewhat conspicuously in front of the adjacent property. In August 2004, Crow Wing County amended its water-surface-use ordinance to require that lakeshore docks be confined to the riparian zone of the property to which the dock is attached. After the LaFons' next-door neighbor complained to the sheriff's department about the LaFon dock, the county issued a citation to Mark Brian LaFon, Leland LaFon's son. After a one-day bench trial, the district court found Mark LaFon guilty of a misdemeanor for violating the county's water-surface-use ordinance. On appeal, Mark LaFon raises numerous issues. We conclude in part II.A. that enforcement of the ordinance violates the LaFons' right to continue a pre-existing, nonconforming use, and we conclude in part III that the state failed to prove that Mark LaFon engaged in any conduct that violated the ordinance. Therefore, we reverse. = = = = A07-0620 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Lendale Thomas, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a judgment of conviction of second-degree controlled-substance offense, appellant argues that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea agreement called for a 45-month sentence but appellant was sentenced to 67 months after he failed to appear for the first sentencing hearing. Appellant argues that a manifest injustice justifies withdrawal of his plea because he was not given an opportunity to understand the consequences of his plea. We affirm. = = = = A07-0036 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. David Michael Davis, Appellant. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant David Michael Davis, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe enrolled at Leech Lake Reservation, moved to dismiss misdemeanor charges of speeding and of failure to provide proof of insurance for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court denied his motion. Appellant then waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded under State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 1980). The district court found appellant guilty. Because the state has subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe enrolled at Leech Lake Reservation for any traffic offense not committed on Leech Lake Reservation, we affirm. We also grant both parties' motions to strike. = = = = A06-2425 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. John Andrew Babey, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Before the district court accepted his plea, appellant moved to withdraw it for various reasons. The court denied the motion, and appellant argues on appeal that the court thereby abused its discretion and committed reversible error. We find no abuse of discretion, and 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. |
