This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Terrance Phillip Hausladen,
Filed September 11, 2007
Carver County District Court
File No. 10-CR-05-996
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Peter R. Marker, Assistant Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Michael A. Fahey, Carver County Attorney,
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie Wolf, Assistant Public
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
On an appeal from a DWI conviction, appellant argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was driving the vehicle when it went off the road, and (2) there was evidence to support his account that an unnamed girlfriend was driving the car. In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, his due-process rights were violated, and the prosecutor committed misconduct. Because we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant’s DWI conviction, there is no evidence that someone else was driving the vehicle, and there is no merit to appellant’s pro se issues, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Sufficiency of Evidence
In considering a claim
of insufficient evidence, this court’s review “is limited to a painstaking
analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a
light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to
reach the verdict which they did.” State v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (
Appellant Terrance Phillip Hausladen was convicted of DWI. The evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to reach the verdict that they did. Joseph Laumann testified that in the early morning hours of October 24, 2005, he noticed a man standing on the side of the highway and stopped to ask if he needed help. Appellant told Laumann that he had gone into the ditch because he had been talking on his cell phone. Laumann believed that appellant was intoxicated because appellant was stumbling, and repeating himself. Laumann also testified that appellant was adamant that he did not want the police called to assist. There was no one else around and appellant never mentioned to Laumann that someone else had been driving the vehicle or that someone was coming to tow the vehicle or pick him up.
The deputies who responded to a 911 call regarding a car in the ditch on Highway 212 testified that when they arrived, appellant was stumbling and they detected an odor of alcohol on his breath. Appellant informed one of the deputies that his girlfriend, Lisa Weinandt, was driving the vehicle when it went into the ditch, and that she had hitchhiked to Norwood-Young America to arrange to get his vehicle out of the ditch. Another deputy noted that appellant’s vehicle was running, the headlights were on, and there was a dog in the vehicle.
Following appellant’s arrest, a deputy called Wienandt to report that appellant had been arrested. Wienandt told the deputy that she had not been with appellant that evening. Wienandt testified that she and appellant had planned to get together to discuss their relationship that evening. Appellant called and asked her to pick him up from a bar. As Wienandt was about to leave to pick appellant up, he called back to tell her that he had just ordered drinks and appetizers for the two of them, and she told him that she would not go into the bar to get him. Wienandt testified that she then went to bed, and appellant called back asking her to pick him up. The third time appellant called, he told Weinandt that his vehicle was in the ditch and that he and his dog were going to need a ride home. Wienandt left to pick appellant up, but she never saw a car in the ditch so she went home. Wienandt also testified that she had known appellant for 17 years and that he was “exceedingly drunk” that night.
At the time of the incident,
appellant was living with Jackie Anderson.
Ashley Anderson, the girlfriend of Jackie Anderson’s son, testified that
appellant and Jackie had been fighting the evening of October 23.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. “The defendant must
affirmatively prove that his counsel’s representation ‘fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness’ and ‘that there is a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. A reasonable probability
is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” Gates v. State, 398 N.W.2d 558,
Specifically, appellant argues that
trial counsel failed to (1) object to evidence, (2) subpoena witnesses, (3)
object to Laumann’s testimony regarding his discussion with the passerby as
hearsay, (4) object to “opinion” testimony that appellant was intoxicated that
evening, (5) move for a mistrial when the jury informed the court that it had
difficulty hearing testimony of several of the state’s witnesses, and (6)
secure witnesses for rebuttal. “Particular deference is
given to the decision of counsel regarding trial
strategy.” State v. Lahue, 585 N.W.2d 785, 789 (
Appellant argues that his due-process rights were violated when he did not receive a copy of the January 2006 order dismissing the DWI test-refusal charge. This issue is unrelated to this appeal; appellant was not tried on the DWI test-refusal charge.
Appellant argues that the prosecutor
misrepresented the facts during his opening statement. “If the defendant failed to object to the
misconduct at trial, he forfeits the right to have the issue considered on
appeal, but if the error is sufficient, this court may review.” State
v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 678 (