| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA06-1898State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Charles E. Thomas, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from convictions of burglary and armed robbery, appellant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court (1) admitted an out-of-court statement as nonhearsay evidence, (2) failed to repeat preliminary instructions during its final charge to the jury, (3) denied his request for surrebuttal closing argument, and (4) failed to sequester the jury during deliberations. We affirm. A07-0874 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Daniel S. Schlienz, Appellant. KALITOWSKI, Judge Appellant Daniel S. Schlienz pleaded guilty to several counts of criminal sexual conduct and violation of a harassment restraining order involving three different victims. Prior to the date scheduled for sentencing, the prosecutor and district court judge had an ex parte meeting to discuss the district court's concerns regarding the possibility that appellant would file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On appeal from the district court's decision to stay imposition and order a year of probationary jail at North East Regional Correctional Center (NERCC), appellant argues that (1) the district court abandoned its impartial and neutral role and should have recused itself from ruling on appellant's motion to withdraw; (2) appellant should be allowed to withdraw his plea; and (3) the district court erred by not allowing appellant an opportunity to retain alternative counsel when his withdrawal motion was based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. A07-0954 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Andrew Malachi Wencl, Appellant PETERSON, Judge In this appeal challenging convictions of and sentences for three counts of being a felon in possession of an explosive device, appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to show that the "MacGyver bombs" that he created were "explosive devices" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.668, subd. 1(a) (2004); and (2) because the three counts arose from the same behavioral incident, the district court erred in using the Hernandez method to increase his criminal-history score. We affirm. A07-0987 A07-1184 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jerome Edward Branson, Appellant (A07-987), John James Molick, Appellant. (A07-1184). WRIGHT, Judge In this consolidated appeal, appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained during the joint stop of appellants for operating their snowmobiles in excess of the legal speed limit. Appellant John Molick argues that the district court's findings are clearly erroneous; both appellants argue that they were stopped without a legal justification; and appellant Jerome Branson argues that there was not probable cause to support his arrest. Branson also argues that enforcement of the speed limit deprived him of due process. In a pro se supplemental brief, Molick argues that the district court erred by excluding some of his testimony and crediting the testimony of the investigating officer. We affirm. A07-1112 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Brian Keith Midderigh, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge On remand from a prior appeal, appellant waived his right to a sentencing jury and subsequently was sentenced by the district court under the "career offender" provision of Minn. Stat. § 609.1095, subd. 4 (2002), to 60 months' imprisonment for third-degree burglary. The district court ordered this sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for a prior conviction. Appellant now argues that, because the district court failed to find that "severe aggravating circumstances" exist to warrant the sentence enhancement of a consecutive sentence, his sentence for third-degree burglary must be vacated and a concurrent sentence must be imposed. We reverse and remand. A07-1238 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Kirk Lloyd Nelson, Appellant. WILLIS, Judge Appellant challenges his sentence for first-degree driving while impaired, arguing that the district court erred in its determination of the duration of the sentence. We reverse and remand. A07-1478 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ronny Auburn Doran, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Pro se appellant challenges the district court's order denying his petition for postconviction relief. Because appellant's claims are procedurally barred by the Knaffla rule or otherwise lack merit, we affirm. A07-1482 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Richard Leroy Giles, Jr., Appellant. MUEHLBERG, Judge After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of escape from custody and violation of a no-contact order. Because venue was proper in Stevens County and no plain error occurred when officers testified regarding appellant's prior contacts with police, 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. |
