Opinions Archive

Appellant Joshua John Leary appeals the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of his driving privileges. He argues that, because the district court erred in finding that law enforcement had reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop, this court must reverse the district court’s order. We affirm.

A statutory city lacks authority pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 216B.36, 222.37, subd. 1, 301B.01, or 412.321, subd. 3 (2018), to impose a revenue-raising franchise fee on a municipally-owned utility that began providing retail electric service to an area before the city incorporated. Reversed and remanded.

Don Guthrie Jr. climbed through the window of a house and assaulted its two occupants. He pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary but now appeals his conviction, arguing that the facts underlying his guilty plea do not establish that he entered the house without consent. Because the record establishes that Guthrie did not have consent to enter the house, we affirm.

After a meeting to discuss her job performance, relator Jenny Pierce left her employment as a project associate for respondent Egan Company (Egan). She then applied for unemployment benefits and indicated three times that she had quit her job with Egan. The department of employment and economic development (DEED) determined Pierce was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Pierce now challenges the unemployment law judge’s (ULJ) decision that she is ineligible, claiming it was error to find that she quit. Because substantial evidence in the record supports the ULJ’s finding, we affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of felony violation of an order for protection, arguing that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence and that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court committed plain error that affected his substantial rights by inadequately responding to a question from the jury during deliberations. We affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of domestic assault, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by admitting relationship evidence. We affirm.

Appellant challenges his conviction of felony domestic assault-fear, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to prove that (1) he intended to cause fear in the victim, (2) the prosecutor committed multiple instances of plainly erroneous misconduct, and (3) the district court erred by admitting substantially prejudicial relationship evidence and by failing to provide a contemporaneous limiting instruction. We affirm.

Appellant argues that a postconviction court erred by denying him relief after an evidentiary hearing because his trial counsel provided him ineffective assistance and his sentence is based on an erroneous criminal-history score. Appellant also raises pro se claims. We affirm.

Dominium Management Services LLC attempted to evict a woman and her adult daughter from their apartment after police discovered a visiting nontenant family member * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. inside possessing illegal drugs (cocaine, ecstasy, and marijuana) and a stolen gun, maintaining that the visitor’s presence with the contraband violated an allegedly strict-liability provision of the lease and also violated a covenant not to allow unlawful activities, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 504B.171 (2018). A housing court referee found that the tenants had not been aware that the visitor possessed the gun or cocaine— the only two items that formed the basis of the state’s prosecution of the visitor. The referee concluded that the alleged lease violation and alleged statutory violation did not justify eviction, and the district court affirmed that decision. Dominium asks us to reverse on appeal based on the strict-liability provision of the lease, the force of which it argues is not diminished by any language in section 504B.171. Because Dominium failed to introduce into the record either the alleged lease or the transcript of the evidentiary hearing where the parties might have articulated the lease terms, we will not address Dominium’s argument on appeal challenging the district court’s conclusion that the lease violation does not warrant eviction. We therefore affirm.

Appellant Johnson Bankole Oluwalowo argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure because he demonstrated he is particularly amenable to treatment. We affirm.