| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA07-0829State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Elliot Lamar-Seccer Pierson, Appellant. LANSING, Judge In this appeal from a conviction of two counts of first-degree aggravated robbery, Elliot Pierson challenges the adequacy of his waiver of trial rights. Because Pierson did not waive the rights described in Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 3, before the case was submitted to the court for a trial on stipulated facts, his waiver was insufficient. We therefore reverse and remand. = = = = A07-0177 Randall Wallace Hancock, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellant Randall Wallace Hancock argues that: (1) he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the calculation of custody credit and the sentence imposed denied him the benefit of his bargain; and (2) in light of the allegedly improper sentence, he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to seek the withdrawal of his guilty plea at the time of sentencing. Because appellant's arguments are barred by the Knaffla rule, we affirm. = = = = A06-2480 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Roger James Norris, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree controlled-substance crime-sale of methamphetamine, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence regarding an uncharged sale that occurred three days before the charged sale. Appellant argues that the prejudicial effect of the evidence requires that his conviction be reversed. We disagree and affirm. = = = = A06-2397 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Ryan David Benson, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from his conviction on stipulated facts of felony theft over ,500, appellant argues that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because police failed to advise him of his Miranda rights, violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and (2) the district court erred in conducting a Lothenbach proceeding by failing to obtain waivers from appellant of his constitutional rights before finding him guilty and by failing to make written findings. Because appellant had not yet been charged with the felony-theft offense when he gave his statement to police, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel for that offense had not yet attached. The district court did not commit reversible error in obtaining waivers of appellant's constitutional rights and was not required to issue written findings in a Lothenbach proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm. = = = = A06-2356 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. James Tim Johnson, Appellant. SHUMAKER, Judge Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction of first-degree aggravated robbery. He contends that the victim's testimony was insufficient to identify him as one of the perpetrators of the crime and that the evidence does not establish that a dangerous weapon was used. Because the evidence is sufficient, we affirm the conviction. = = = = A06-2011 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Tramaine P. Taylor, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a conviction of fifth-degree controlled-substance offense, appellant argues that because his arrest was not supported by probable cause, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the crack cocaine discovered during a search incident to the arrest. We affirm. = = = = A06-1901 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Ray Hansen, Appellant. HUDSON, Judge On appeal from conviction of second-degree felony murder, appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of guilt; (2) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by intentionally violating the witness-sequestration order; (3) the district court abused its discretion by permitting the state to impeach him with his two prior felony convictions; and (4) there was insufficient evidence in the record to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intended to commit the crimes of which he was convicted. 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. |
