| THE ST PAUL CONSUMER LAW ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
UNPUBLISHED CRIMINAL OPINIONS FROM THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALSA08-0137Jeffrey Alan Truelson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent. TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge This appeal is from an order denying appellant Jeffrey Alan Truelson's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued incarceration after he reached his supervised-release date. Truelson argues that respondent Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections, is required to release him because he did not violate his conditions of release. We reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings. = = = = A07-938 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Jonas Gerald Grice, Respondent. WILLIS, Judge The state appeals from respondent's sentence, arguing that the district-court judge impermissibly injected himself into plea negotiations and abused his discretion by imposing a sentence that was a downward dispositional and durational departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence. We affirm. = = = = A07-0818 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Samantha Lee Ramert, Respondent. SHUMAKER, Judge The state appeals from a sentence imposed on respondent following a jury trial finding her guilty of felony theft of a motor vehicle. The district court sentenced respondent to a gross misdemeanor sentence of 365 days stayed, which was a downward durational departure from the presumptive sentence. The state argues that the district court abused its discretion ordering this sentence because the circumstances did not warrant the departure. Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. = = = = A07-0648 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michelle Lynn Offill, Appellant. STONEBURNER, Judge Appellant challenges her conviction of fourth-degree driving while impaired, arguing that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause because driving over the fog line one time at 12:19 a.m. did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to support a traffic stop. We affirm. = = = = A07-0500 A07-0834 Andrea Lyn Lennartson, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent, and State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Andrea Lyn Lennartson, Appellant. PORITSKY, Judge Appellant challenges the revocation of her driving privileges and her conviction of fourth-degree driving while impaired. Appellant argues that police violated her state and federal constitutional rights by entering her home, without warrant or consent, to investigate reported drunk-driving conduct and a domestic disturbance. Appellant further contends that police lacked probable cause to believe that she was driving or in physical control of a motor vehicle. Because we conclude (1) that the trial court did not err in finding that appellant gave valid consent for the police to enter her home and (2) that police had sufficient probable cause to arrest appellant, we affirm. = = = = A07-0237 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Rigoberto Rodriguez, Appellant. CONNOLLY, Judge Appellant challenges the sentence imposed by the district court on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He argues that the district court erred by sentencing him to 144 months on each count to run consecutively, because 144 months was neither the mandatory minimum nor the presumptive sentence based on his criminal history score of zero. We affirm. = = = = A06-2438 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Franz J. Suber, Appellant. MINGE, Judge Appellant challenges his conviction of second-degree driving under the influence of a controlled substance, arguing that (a) the district court violated his constitutional right to confrontation by admitting a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) report, when the analyst who prepared the report was not available to testify at trial; and (b) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The state concedes that admission of the BCA report violated Suber's right to confrontation, but asserts that Suber is not entitled to a new trial because that error was harmless. Because the evidence was insufficient to support Suber's conviction even with this improperly-admitted evidence, we reverse. = = = = A06-2234 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Scott Allan Meredith, Appellant COLLINS, Judge Appellant challenges the district court's imposition of sex-offender-based sentencing provisions that required him to register as a predatory sex offender and undergo a psychosexual evaluation. He contends that the imposition of these conditions was improper because (1) his conviction of child endangerment did not arise out of the same set of circumstances as a statutorily enumerated offense, and (2) the predatory- offender-registration and assessment statutes are unconstitutional as applied to him. Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of child endangerment. We affirm. = = = = A06-2220 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robby Lee Vaughn, Appellant. CRIPPEN, Judge Challenging his conviction on charges brought after investigation of a car crash, appellant Robby Vaughn contends that the district court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial following questioning by the prosecutor on appellant's prior contacts with police. Although the prosecutor's questioning was not excusable, we affirm in light of the isolated nature of the questioning and the volume of evidence of appellant's guilt. = = = = A06-2199 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Edward D. Blevins, Appellant. LANSING, Judge The district court found Edward Blevins guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. In this appeal from conviction, Blevins challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the elements of penetration and personal injury for each count and also contends that the district court erred by failing to issue written findings. Because the district court's on-the-record oral findings thoroughly address each element and because the factual record provides support for the determinations on the contested elements, we affirm. = = = = A06-2130 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Elton Perez Vance, Appellant COLLINS, Judge Following this court's remand for resentencing in light of Blakely, a sentencing jury returned a special verdict finding that appellant committed the offense with particular cruelty, that he committed multiple forms of sexual penetration, and that the offense was committed within the "sight or sound" of children. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to a double-upward departure of 288 months for first-degree criminal sexual conduct. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) he was denied the right to a fair sentencing trial when the district court permitted a paramedic who responded to the scene to describe the call as "horrific"; (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed the offenses within the presence of children or that the presence of children rendered the victim particularly vulnerable; (3) he is entitled to a new trial because the district court's instructions were vague and materially misstated the law; and (4) his sentence should be reduced to the presumptive duration because convening the second jury violated his double-jeopardy rights. We affirm. = = = = A06-2060 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Hussein Yusuf, Appellant. PETERSON, Judge In this appeal from a conviction of second-degree controlled-substance crime, appellant argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to prove that he constructively possessed cocaine that was found in a public space, and (2) his confrontation rights were violated when the state failed to call a witness to testify regarding the identity and weight of the substance. 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. |
