This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A05-1510
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Markell Terrell Ross,
Appellant.
Filed June 13, 2006
Affirmed
Shumaker, Judge
Hennepin County
District Court
File No. 04064176
Mike Hatch,
Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN
55101-2134; and
Amy Klobuchar,
Hennepin County Attorney, Thomas A. Weist, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000
Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public
Defender, Susan Andrews, Assistant Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue S.E., Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered
and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Wright, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I
O N
SHUMAKER, Judge
Appellant challenges his
convictions of second-degree burglary and attempted second-degree burglary,
arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Because we find no error, we affirm.
After a bench trial, the
district court found appellant Markell Terrell Ross guilty of the burglary of a
home in Minnetonka and the attempted burglary of
a home in Hopkins
on September 22, 2004. Ross contends
that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of either crime.
Between 11:00 and 11:20
a.m., two men working on the outside of a house in Minnetonka saw two males walking east along
an adjacent street. About 20 minutes later,
the men saw the same males walking west and across the yard of a neighbor. One male was now pulling a suitcase and the
other was wearing a knapsack.
The neighbor arrived home at
12:20 p.m. and found that her house had been broken into and ransacked. Several items were missing, including a green
suitcase, a purse, a computer, walkie-talkies, a camera, a camcorder, CD-ROMs,
and coins and currency.
At approximately 12:40 p.m.,
a Hopkins
resident arrived home and saw a male standing in the bushes in her front
yard. As she drove into her driveway,
the male moved deeper into the bushes.
She got out of the car and asked the male what he was doing and he
replied that he was looking for Rick.
Another male came from behind her and joined the first male. She watched both leave and get into a red
Suburban vehicle. Although nothing was
missing from her home, the Hopkins
resident noted that the side door to the garage, where one of the males had
been, was opened and there were muddy footprints in the garage. She dialed 911.
A short time later, a Hopkins police officer saw a red Suburban matching the
description that the Hopkins
resident had given, and he attempted to stop it. The driver did not stop, and the officer gave
chase, eventually succeeding in getting the vehicle to stop. There were two males in the Suburban, along
with all of the property that had been taken from the Minnetonka home. In addition to that property, the vehicle
contained a screwdriver that expert testimony showed could have been used to
pry open the door of the Minnetonka
home.
Before the Hopkins
incident, a Minnetonka police detective had seen
a red Suburban vehicle make a U-turn in the area of the Minnetonka burglary. He was later able to identify Ross as the
driver. At trial, the Hopkins resident was able to identify Ross as
one of the males on her property.
Additionally, castings of the muddy footprints in the Hopkins garage matched the tread pattern on
Ross’s shoes.
D E C I S I O N
In considering a claim of insufficient evidence, this
court’s review is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine
whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
conviction, is sufficient to allow the fact-finder to reach the verdict that it
did. State
v. Webb, 440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn.
1989). The reviewing court must assume
the fact-finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to
the contrary. State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108
(Minn.
1989).
When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence,
the standard for the sufficiency of the evidence warrants particular
scrutiny. State v. Bolstad, 686 N.W.2d 531, 539 (Minn. 2004).
A conviction is supported by circumstantial evidence when, under the
totality of the circumstances, the evidence excludes all reasonable inferences
except guilt of the defendant. State v. Olhausen, 681 N.W.2d 21, 26 (Minn. 2004).
The totality of the
circumstances excludes all reasonable inferences except that of Ross’s guilt of
the crimes of which he was convicted.
Although one of the men who saw the two males in Minnetonka apparently did not accurately
assess their height differential, this discrepancy was minor. A police detective saw Ross in Minnetonka in the general
area of the burglary in a red Suburban. Ross was later found in that vehicle with all
the property taken from the burglary.
The Hopkins resident identified Ross as being one
of the men on her property when she arrived home and the muddy footprints
matched Ross’s shoe-tread pattern. There
was also located in the red Suburban a screwdriver that could have been used to
pry open the door of the burglarized Minnetonka
home. These facts, coupled with the fact that the driver of the Suburban in
Hopkins, Ross’s companion, attempted to flee the police officer, lead
ineluctably to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross participated
in the burglary of the Minnetonka home and the
attempted burglary of the Hopkins
home.
Ross’s contention that there
are other reasonable explanations for the circumstantial evidence is without
merit. His argument that the evidence at
best showed that he was in possession of stolen goods ignores all the other
evidence linking him to the two crimes.
He was in the areas where the crimes were committed at the times of the
crimes; he possessed property taken in the completed burglary; and his shoe
tread matched the shoe tread in the place of the attempted burglary. Nothing Ross offers negates or sufficiently
diminishes the strong circumstantial evidence against him.
Affirmed.