Opinions Archive

When a defendant challenges an impermissible consecutive sentence imposed as part of an agreed-upon sentence in a plea agreement, and a guidelines sentence would alter the benefit of the bargain, the district court may consider a motion to withdraw from the plea agreement and is not required to impose a guidelines sentence. Reversed and remanded.

Following marital-dissolution proceedings, appellant-father challenges the district court's business valuation, child-support award, and division of retirement assets. We affirm.

Respondent Joe Leko, in his official capacity as Dakota County Sheriff, petitioned the district court to revoke appellant Laurence Edward Henderson's permit to carry a pistol. The district court granted the sheriff's petition and revoked Henderson's permit. On appeal, Henderson argues that the revocation of his permit to carry a pistol under Minnesota Statutes section 624.714 (2024) violated his Second Amendment rights. Henderson also argues that the district court erred when it concluded that the sheriff established by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial likelihood that Henderson was a danger to himself or the public. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the decision of a child-support magistrate (CSM) reducing his child-support obligation, arguing that the CSM abused its discretion by not terminating his obligation altogether. Appellant also asserts that multiple other errors entitle him to relief. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion for a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence following his conviction for felony possession of ammunition or a firearm. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a downward dispositional departure because he met all relevant factors and was particularly amenable to probation. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a sentence within the presumptive range, we affirm.

In this probate dispute, appellant argues that the district court should not have allowed a copy of decedent's will to be admitted to probate and should not have appointed respondent as personal representative. We affirm.

Appellant challenges the postconviction court's order denying his petition for postconviction relief seeking a new trial. We affirm.

Juvenile A.A.A. brandished a kitchen knife to ward off his drunk stepfather in their kitchen after the two fought in the garage. Facing charges of second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, misdemeanor assault (fear), misdemeanor domestic assault (attempted harm), and threats of violence, A.A.A. maintained at his bench trial that brandishing the knife was a justified act of self-defense. The district court rejected the defense and found A.A.A. guilty of only the first two charges. In this appeal in which A.A.A. argues that the evidence does not support the guilty verdict, we affirm the district court's basis for rejecting A.A.A.'s claim of self-defense because we defer to the district court's credibility finding that he lacked an honest belief that he was in imminent danger.

In this dispute in a supervised probate matter, appellant beneficiary argues that the district court should not have approved the supplemental final account (final account) and proposed distribution of his father's estate because (1) the final account and proposed distribution were based on financial documentation that was incorrect and (2) an evidentiary hearing and discovery were warranted. Respondents, the co-personal representatives of the estate, have moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. We deny respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal and affirm the district court.

Shawn Haren sued his former wife, Nicole Haren (now Nicole Kopsell), alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment premised on her failure to reimburse him for the loan that he obtained to cover deferred mortgage payments on their marital home while Kopsell continued living in the home pending its refinancing in her name. The district court entered summary judgment favoring Haren based on the undisputed evidence that a postdivorce agreement allowed Kopsell to remain in the home while Haren made ongoing mortgage payments, that his mortgage-payment obligation was deferred under a pandemic- related federal loan program that made the payments on Haren's behalf, and that, when Kopsell eventually refinanced the home in her name, she knowingly failed to include the amount of debt that Haren incurred under the federal program and failed to reimburse him for that debt. Because Kopsell argues uncompellingly on appeal that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the suit, that the district court should not have considered summary judgment without first requiring the parties to engage in negotiated or mediated settlement efforts, and that the district court failed in its duty to adequately assist Kopsell as an unrepresented party, we affirm.