Opinions Archive

1. Under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a) (2022), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence, a group of disassembled and incomplete shotgun parts can be a “firearm”—an instrument designed for attack or defense that expels a projectile by some explosive force. 2. The evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a), despite the firearm being disassembled and incomplete. Affirmed.

1. Under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a) (2022), which criminalizes the possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence, a group of disassembled and incomplete shotgun parts can be a “firearm”—an instrument designed for attack or defense that expels a projectile by some explosive force. 2. The evidence is sufficient to support appellant’s conviction under Minnesota Statutes section 609.165, subdivision 1b(a), despite the firearm being disassembled and incomplete. Affirmed.

1. Minnesota Statutes section 127A.41, subdivision 3 (2022), when read in conjunction with Minnesota Statutes section 124E.16, subdivision 1(a) (2022), authorizes the commissioner of education to conduct audits of charter school records “for the purpose of verifying” pupil counts and state aid entitlements. 2. The authority of the commissioner under section 127A.41, subdivision 3, to conduct audits and to order “increases or decreases” in state aid based on audit results is separate from and is not limited by the authority of the commissioner to “reduce or withhold” state aid for violations of law under Minnesota Statutes section 127A.42 (2022).

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS September 25, 2023 _____________________________________ In re the Marriage of: Rebecca Megan Locketz, petitioner, SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 Appellant, A23-1313 ...

We affirm because the district court did not err by amending the parenting-time schedule; by denying appellant-father’s motion for modified parenting time; or in * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. calculating the parties’ incomes in determining a modification to father’s support obligation.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS _____________________________________ September 25, 2023 In the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of: K. F. and M. L., Parents. SPECIAL TERM ORDER 1 _____________________________________ A23- ...

Appellant challenges his judgments of conviction for first- and second-degree burglary along with the sentence imposed. Appellant raises four issues: (1) whether the record evidence is sufficient to support his convictions; (2) whether his convictions should be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the prosecutor committed plain, prejudicial misconduct during closing argument by referring to facts not in evidence; (3) whether the district court erred in calculating appellant’s criminal-history score; and (4) whether the district court erred by convicting appellant of a lesser-included offense. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for resentencing and to vacate the appellant’s conviction for second-degree burglary.

1. Minnesota Statutes section 127A.41, subdivision 3 (2022), when read in conjunction with Minnesota Statutes section 124E.16, subdivision 1(a) (2022), authorizes the commissioner of education to conduct audits of charter school records “for the purpose of verifying” pupil counts and state aid entitlements. 2. The authority of the commissioner under section 127A.41, subdivision 3, to conduct audits and to order “increases or decreases” in state aid based on audit results is separate from and is not limited by the authority of the commissioner to “reduce or withhold” state aid for violations of law under Minnesota Statutes section 127A.42 (2022).

Appellants challenge an order requiring the current trustees of two related trusts to decide how to apportion respondent-trustee’s costs, disbursements, and fees. Appellants first contest certain factual findings made by the district court. Second, appellants argue that the district court erroneously failed to limit its order only to the trust that respondent- trustee was appointed to administer. We affirm.

We affirm because the district court did not err by amending the parenting-time schedule; by denying appellant-father’s motion for modified parenting time; or in * Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. calculating the parties’ incomes in determining a modification to father’s support obligation.