A07-1990

State  of Minnestoa,

Respondent,

vs.

Daniel L. Conley,

Appellant.

CONNOLLY, Judge

This case involves appellant Daniel Conley’s conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and subsequent sentencing based on the aggravating factor of the presence of children during the commission of the crime.  After we affirmed his conviction, the supreme court decided 20 State v. Vance, 765 N. W. 2d 390  (Minn. 2009), and our decision was reversed on the issue of whether the district court erred when it imposed an upward sentencing departure based on the Blakely jury’s finding that the children were present in the home and remanded to this court for further proceedings.  Because we now conclude that the district court erred in the way it drafted the special verdict interrogatory, we reverse and remand for a new Blakely trial on the aggravating factor.

====

A08-663

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Ronnie Duane Cartlidge,

Appellant.

WRIGHT, Judge

Appellant challenges the denial of postconvictions relief, arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying his petition for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and (2) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  We affirm.

====

A08-1278

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Danny Kwami Barnes,

Appellant.

SHUMAKER, Judge

Appellant challenges his convictions, arguing that his waiver of counsel was constitutionally invalid.  Because the record does not reasonalby support a conclusion that sppellant’s waiver was intelligent and knowing, wew reverse and remand for a new trial.

====

A08-1281

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Jason L. Jaqua,

Appellant.

MINGE, Judge

Appellant challenges the order requiring him to pay restitution in the amount of $13, 690. 02  Appellant argues that the amount of restitution awarded to the crime victim was unreasonable, that the district court erred in ordering appellant to pay restitution to crime victim’s adult son, and that the district court erred in failing to expressly consider appellant’s financial situation.  We affirm

====

A08-1327

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Michael James Ferguson,

Appellant.

MINGE, Judge

Appellant challenges his conviction of eight counts of aiding and abetting second-degree assault and drive-by shooting and his sentence. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict appellant of all counts and to corroborate the testimony of appellant’s accomplices, we affirm the convictions.  We further conclude that appellant was not sentenced in violation of his right to a jury trial.  But because the district court erred in failing to sentence appellant on the most serious offense, we remand for resentencing.

====

A08-1569

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Ana Danira Hernandez-Maldonado,

Appellant

COLLINS, Judge

Appellant challenges  her conviction of aggravated forgery, arguing that the district court erred by denying her motion to suppress and by admitting evidence obtained as products of the unconstitutional search of her home.  We reverse and remand.

====

A08-1785

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Joey Lamarr Lash, Appellant.

KALITOWSKI,  Judge

Appellant Joey Lamarr Lash challenges his conviction of misconduct of a public officer in violation of Minn. Stat. S609.43(2)   (2006).  Appellant argues that (1) a personnel rule contained in a city ordinance cannot lawfully constitute the basis for a criminal conviction of misconduct of a public officer;  (2) section 609.43 (2) is unconstitutionally vague under the due process clause of the Minnesota and federal constitutions; (3) appellant’s conviction of misconduct of a public officer, when coupled witha hung jury on the remaining theft-by-swindle charges, is perverse; and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of a misconduct of a public officer.  Because a personnel rule contained in a city ordinance cannot constitute the basis for a misconduct-of-a-public-officer conviction, we reverse.

====

A08-1847

State of Minnesota,

Respondent,

vs.

Cain Lee Wiskow

Appellant.

STAUBER, Judge

On appeal from his convictions of fleeing a peace officer and giving a false name to police, appellant argues that the district court abused it discretion by allowing testimony about the contents of a document found in his vehicle that he alleges was used to establish his identity as the driver of the vehicle. Appellant also contends that the district court committed plain error by (1) allowing testimony that police recognized appellant from prior contacts and that a warrant existed for appellant’s arrest and (2) providing the jury with a “reasonable doubt” instruction that was confusing and repetitive.  We affirm

====

A08 2146

Perry Shawn Hardesty, petitioner,

Appellant

vs.

State of Minnesota,

Respondent

LARKIN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for postconviction relief.  Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that appellant’s  challenge to the legality of his sentence is procedurally barred and by summarily denying his petition on this ground, we affirm.

====

A09-0206

Ronald Mark Alstrup, petitioner,

Appellant

vs.

State of Minnesota,

Respondent

SHUMAKER, Judge

Appellant contends that the district court imposed an illegal consecutive sentence when it ordered that the second sentence commence upon completion of the first sentence rather than upon his release from prison, as provided by the sentencing guidelines.  Because the district court identified and relied upon sufficient  aggravating factors to support its sentencing departure, we affirm.

====

Criminal – Expansion of Stop

In reversing a District Court suppression order, the Court finds that observations made by an officer justified expanding the original stop by asking for consent to search where the officer smelled alcohol and a chemical order. The defendant’s probation prohibited him from consuming alcohol and the appearance of one of the passengers was consistent with meth use.   State  v.  Ramirez A09-0301  (Ct. App. Unbubl.  08/04/09)

Criminal – Drug Arrest – Probable Cause

The defendant accompanied a woman who was just observed participating in a drug transaction. One of the participants stated that the defendant was present with the woman during prior drug transactions.  When the officer approached the vehicle he saw the defendant holding $160.00 in cash. The Court finds there was probable cause to arrest the defendant.  State  v.  Hollins, A08-0971  (Ct.  App. Unpubl.  08/11/09)

Criminal – Approaching Stopped Vehicle

Officers drove behind a truck that was behind a closed truck stoop.  The defendant exited the vehicle on his own and told the deputies he had too much to drink.  The Court finds there was no seizure until after the defendant had left his vehicle and spoke with deputies.  State  v.  Casey, A08-1345  (Ct. App. Unpubl.  08/11/09)

Criminal- Brake Lights – Littering

An officer observed a vehicle with the center light not working, and at the same time noted the defendant was littering.  The Court finds each offense constitutes separate, valid reasons to stop the vehicle even though the officer did not investigate the violations further.  State  v.  Beall, A09-0501  (Ct. App. 08/25/09)

Criminal/ Report from Ex-Wife

The Court finds that a report from the driver’s ex-wife that she believed the driver was “borderline drunk” along with an officer’s observations reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.  Freeman  v.  Commissioner, A08-1433 (Ct. App. Unpbl.  07/07/09)

Criminal – Curtilage of Residence

The Court agrees with a District Court order surppressing evidence of drugs found underneath a tree in the backyard on a property where there was a call to put out a fire.  The pine was about 15-20 feet outside the back door of the residence and an officer seized the bag without a warrant.  The Court finds that the State failed to establish that the bag was found outside the curtilage of the residence.   State v. Boman, A09-0061  (Ct. App. Unpbl. 07/07/09

Criminal/ Private Search – No Suppression

An assisting emergency room technician searched the defendant’s clothes for valuables and found crack cocaine.  The technician turned the crack cocaine over to the state trooper who was not present during the search.  The Court finds that this was a private search and there was no State action requiring suppression. State  v.  Harris, A08-0717 (Ct. App. Unpubl.  07/07/09)

Criminal/ Search Warrant-Informant

A confidential informant came to  officers and told them that the defendant used meth and sold controlled substances at his place of business.  Some of the information was confirmed and officers found amphetamine in garbage set out at the defendant’s home.  The Court finds probable cause  for a search warrant at the defendant’s place of business.  State  v.  Pederson, A08-1555  (Ct.  App.  Unpubl.  07/07/09)

Criminal/ Broken Taillight

The  Court finds that a broken taillight provided sufficient reason to stop the vehicle.  State  v.  Jorgenson, A08-0865  (Ct. App. Unpubl.  07/07/09

Criminal- Vehicle Stop Improper

An officer observed the defendant’s vehicle stopped behind a railroad crossing at 1:30 a.m.  After a few minutes the vehicle had still not moved.  When the officer exited the squad car the vehicle drove away and stopped at a nearby stop light. The Court finds that the officer did not have reason to suspect criminal activity and finds the stop improper.   State  v.  Jahnke, A09-0322  (Ct.  App.  Unpubl.  07/07/09)