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.

====