Opinions Archive

In this pretrial appeal from the district court's order suppressing evidence and dismissing a firearm-possession charge, the state argues that the search of the vehicle was reasonable in the interests of officer and public safety. We agree, and reverse and remand.

On appeal from the judgment and decree dissolving the parties' marriage, appellant- wife argues that the district court abused its discretion in (1) denying her request for spousal maintenance, (2) miscalculating respondent-husband's child-support obligation, and (3) denying her request to change her name. We affirm the denial of appellant's request for maintenance and the calculation of respondent's child-support obligation, but we reverse and remand in part with instructions to change appellant's name.

On appeal from the termination of her parental rights, appellant-mother challenges the district court's determinations that respondent-county made reasonable efforts to reunite her with the child, that termination is supported by a statutory basis, and that termination is in the best interests of the child. We affirm.

In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for first-degree and aggravated first-degree controlled-substance crimes and for unlawful possession of a firearm, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he unlawfully possessed methamphetamine. Appellant raises additional issues in his pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

In this appeal following a conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant argues that (1) the postconviction court abused its discretion by denying his petition to withdraw his guilty plea and (2) the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward durational departure. We affirm.

On direct appeal, appellant James Earl Bailey challenges his false-imprisonment conviction. Bailey argues he is entitled to a new trial due to the district court's decision to exclude evidence that the alleged victim suffered from anxiety and post-traumatic-stress disorder (PTSD). Because we conclude the district court's decision to exclude the evidence was not an abuse of discretion and did not deprive Bailey of his constitutional right to present a complete defense, we affirm.

Appellant Anthony Michael Webster II filed a petition for an order for protection (OFP) on behalf of his minor child, M.W., against respondent Sefanit Adkins, M.W.'s aunt. The district court dismissed the petition. On appeal, Webster argues that the district court (1) erred in failing to remove the judge; (2) abused its discretion by denying his request for a continuance and in its evidentiary rulings; (3) erred in its credibility findings; and (4) clearly erred by finding that no domestic abuse occurred. We affirm.

In this direct appeal from a conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm, appellant Dapri Alexander Vande Hallom argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a firearm. We affirm.

In this trust dispute, appellant co-trustee and beneficiary challenges the district court's order granting respondent special fiduciary's request for reimbursement of attorney fees from the trust. Appellant argues that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to grant respondent's request for attorney fees without allowing her additional discovery. We affirm.

Appellant James Michael Thomson was convicted of eleven counts following a jury trial. On direct appeal, Thomson challenges seven of those convictions: two second- degree assault counts; four false-imprisonment counts; and one first-degree criminal damage to property count. He argues the state presented insufficient evidence to prove his guilt for these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude the state presented sufficient evidence to sustain Thomson's second-degree-assault and false-imprisonment convictions. However, we also conclude the state failed to prove that Thomson caused property damage exceeding $1,000. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand, directing the district court to vacate Thomson's first-degree criminal damage to property conviction, to enter a conviction for fourth-degree criminal damage to property, and for resentencing.