skip to content
Primary navigation

Opinions Archive

Results 1 - 10 of 1295
Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of theft of property worth more than $1,000 but not more than $5,000, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subds. 2(a)(1), 3(3)(a) (2014), and moved for a downward dispositional or downward durational departure. The district court denied appellant’s motion and sentenced her to a presumptive guidelines sentence. Appellant asks to withdraw her guilty plea alleging that it is inaccurate and argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her departure motion. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
The district court terminated a mother’s parental rights to her five-year-old son after finding that the county had proved four statutory grounds for termination and that termination would be in the child’s best interests. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
Appellant challenges his convictions of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Appellant also appears to argue, in a pro se brief, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
Pro se appellant was convicted of six counts of deprivation of parental/custodial rights. She now argues that (1) the district court erred in not instructing the jury on the affirmative defense under Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 2(1) (2012); (2) law enforcement and the prosecution committed misconduct by tampering with the testimony of a witness; (3) the prosecution committed misconduct by not providing appellant with all of the discovery; and (4) she was deprived of her right to a fair trial due to judicial bias. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
Appellant challenges the district court’s entry of default judgment terminating his parental rights and denial of his motion to vacate judgment. Appellant argues that he received insufficient notice that his parental rights could be terminated if he failed to appear and that he satisfied the standard for vacating a default judgment. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
Appellant asks the court to vacate his Alford plea to fourth-degree controlled- substance crime, arguing that (1) the district court erred in accepting his plea because it was inaccurate and invalid; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying his presentence motions to withdraw his plea. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
Appellant-mortgagor challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to respondent-bank on appellant’s counterclaims, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting her a shorter continuance than requested because she had insufficient time to hire counsel, and that the district court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
Appellant challenges his conviction of felony fifth-degree assault, arguing that the district court plainly erred by accepting defense counsel’s stipulation to appellant’s prior convictions when he did not personally waive his right to a jury trial on those elements of the felony offense. In a pro se supplemental brief, appellant challenges the credibility of a witness, asserts that the prosecuting authority lacked jurisdiction, and contends he was entitled to additional jail credit. We affirm.
Date: October 16, 2017
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Standards of Conduct for Minnesota No-Fault Arbitrators, as shown in the attachment to this order, are effective January 1, 2018. The standards shall be published as an appendix to the No-Fault, Comprehensive, or Collision Damage Automobile Insurance Arbitration Rules.
Date: October 16, 2017
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Respondent Duane A. Kennedy is suspended from the practice of law for a minimum of30 days, effective 14 days from the date of this order. 2. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspension to clients, opposing counsel, and tribunals). 3. Respondent shall pay $900 in costs under Rule 24, RLPR.
Date: October 13, 2017
back to top