Opinions Archive

When a tribal-state compact permits a federally recognized tribe to operate video games of chance in Minnesota and Minnesota law prohibits racetracks from operating video games of chance and other gambling devices and limits the number of tables at a racetrack’s card club, the federally recognized tribe has standing to challenge the Minnesota Racing Commission’s decision allowing a racetrack to add new electronic table games as an allegedly unlawful expansion of gambling. Affirmed.

For possession of pornographic work involving a minor, cloud storage is a “storage system of any other type” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 617.247, subd. 4(a) (2020). Affirmed.

To justify a district court’s inclusion of out-of-state convictions in a defendant’s criminal-history score, the State of Minnesota does not satisfy its burden of establishing the validity of the convictions and that the defendant was the person involved by relying solely on a presentence investigation report that does not meet the standard set forth in Minnesota Rule of Evidence 1005. Reversed and remanded.

Appellant Urdain Augustin argues his guilty plea was inaccurate because he negated an essential element of the offense during his plea colloquy. We reverse and remand.

This is an appeal from the district court's order summarily denying appellant's petition for postconviction relief. Through his postconviction petition, appellant sought withdrawal of his guilty plea to misdemeanor operation of a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more within two hours. He argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in denying his petition because: (1) his guilty plea was unintelligent given that he did not knowingly waive his right to appeal the court's pretrial order denying his motion to suppress evidence and to dismiss the charges; and (2) his plea was involuntary on ineffective-assistance-of-counsel grounds. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying appellant's petition after determining that appellant's guilty plea was intelligent and voluntary, we affirm.

In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.

Appellants argue that the district court erred by denying their motion to compel arbitration. Because the claims asserted against appellants fall outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, we affirm.

Appellant Z.C.W. (father) challenges the district court's order granting respondent Scott County Health and Human Service's (the county) petition to terminate his parental rights to child. We affirm.

A jury received evidence that Dale Fitch pointed his finger at his neighbor during a heated outburst while telling him, among other things, "I’m gonna fucking kill you and bury you in Stillwater." Fitch argues on appeal from his conviction of making threats of violence first that the jury did not receive sufficient evidence to find him guilty because his statement was an expression of transitory anger rather than an actual threat to commit a violent crime and second that, because his statement was not a true threat, it falls under the protection of his First Amendment right of free speech. Because we hold that the evidence supports the jury's finding that Fitch's statement was a true threat to commit violence, both arguments fail, and we affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief, arguing that the district court erred in determining that he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. We affirm.