Opinions Archive

When the facts are undisputed and the district court does not need to weigh the evidence or apportion fault to apply an equitable doctrine, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court’s dismissal of an in pari delicto claim on summary judgment. Affirmed.

In this appeal from the district court's order summarily denying postconviction relief, appellant Sean William Roulo argues that the district court erred by concluding that his petition for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and abused its discretion by denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We affirm appellant's conviction for failure to comply with a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) order in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 103G.2372 (2020) because the district court did not err in construing the offense as a strict liability crime for the purposes of jury instructions.

In this direct appeal, appellant Lebert Clair McDowell challenges his domestic- assault conviction on three grounds. First, he argues respondent State of Minnesota presented insufficient evidence to prove that he caused L.B.'s (victim) injuries. Second, he asserts the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Finally, he contends the district court violated the Confrontation Clause when it admitted testimonial hearsay. We affirm.

After appellant Clayton Robert Kessler pleaded guilty to attempted burglary, the district court ordered him to pay $6,450 in restitution. On appeal, Kessler argues that the district court erred by failing to properly consider his ability to pay. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's decision on summary judgment that a conveyance to him of a 25% interest in the family farm was a legal nullity. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand.

We first reverse the district court's imposition of multiple sentences for multiple victims on appellant Anthony Leandre Winston's aiding and abetting charges and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate the sentence for count two. Second, we affirm the district court's assignment of a severity level of nine to Winston's offense of aiding an offender—accomplice after-the-fact in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.495, subdivision 3 (2022) because the district court did not abuse its discretion as to this issue. Third, we remand so that the district court may vacate Winston's sentence for count two.

Christina Alexis Newland petitioned the district court for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against Tory Michael Schaaf. The district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing, but Schaaf failed to appear. The district court granted Newland's petition and issued an HRO without receiving any testimony or exhibits into evidence during the evidentiary hearing. We conclude that the district court did not err because its findings of fact are supported by allegations in Newland's verified petition, which may be treated as evidence. Therefore, we affirm.

Self-represented appellant Cameron O'Neal Clark filed a petition for postconviction relief based on witness recantation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition, and Clark appeals. Because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Clark's postconviction petition, we affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's June 2025 order finding him incompetent to proceed under Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01. Because the district court issued a subsequent order in January 2026 finding appellant incompetent to proceed, appellant's challenge to the June 2025 order does not present a justiciable controversy and is moot. We therefore dismiss this appeal.