| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0261State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert Edward Cindrich, Appellant. WRIGHT, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's reimposition of an enhanced sentence on remand for reconsideration in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the aggravating factors found by the sentencing jury and, even if the evidence supporting the aggravating factors is sufficient, the district court abused its discretion by sentencing appellant to 360 months' imprisonment. Appellant also contends that the district court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the aggravating factors. In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant raises five additional challenges to his resentencing. We affirm. A07-1012 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Christopher Edwards, Appellant. SCHELLHAS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's upward durational departure in his sentencing for his conviction of first-degree assault. Because the conduct considered by the district court shows that the first-degree assault was committed in a particularly serious way, we conclude that the upward durational departure is justified, and we affirm. A07-1178 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. David Earl Riley, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge On appeal from his conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to instruct the jury on "fleeting control." Because Minnesota has not adopted the notion of "fleeting control" as an exception to the rule of "possession," we affirm. A08-0135 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Randy Earl Gedicke, Respondent. CONNOLLY, Judge The State of Minnesota challenges the district court's dismissal of the charge of felony fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle against respondent based on its ruling that there was no reasonable basis for a traffic stop of respondent's all-terrain vehicle (ATV). Because a loud, popping muffler on the ATV created a reasonable, articulable suspicion of an equipment violation and appellant's subsequent reckless driving provided grounds for a stop, we reverse and remand. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
