Appellate Courts >
Court of Appeals >
Court of Appeals Opinions >
Court of Appeals Published Opinions
Appellate Courts will begin transmitting all notices, orders, and opinions electronically.
Beginning no later than July 1, 2011, the appellate courts will send notices, orders, opinions and correspondence related to pending cases to attorneys in those cases by e-mail rather than postal mail. All attorneys with pending appellate cases who have not already registered an e-mail address should do so immediately. Unrepresented parties with pending appellate cases may also participate in this e-notification system by registering an e-mail address. Please go to http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=156 for instructions how to register your e-mail address.
DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
FILED MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2014
A14-0750 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Martin David Hutchins, Jr., Appellant.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Toddrick S. Barnette.
When a defendant's sentence is based on multiple related convictions, a district court does not err when modifying the length of an unchallenged sentence on remand following a successful appeal, because the sentencing package doctrine applies.
Affirmed. Judge Renee L. Worke.
A14-0409 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Andrew Will Alexander, Appellant.
Ramsey County District Court, Hon. Patrick C. Diamond.
Under the plain language of Minn. Stat. §§ 611A.04, .045 (2012), the district court is not authorized to order a defendant to sell personal property to satisfy a restitution order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judge Francis J. Connolly.
A13-2031 In re the Marriage of: Becki Anne Suleski, f/k/a Becki Anne Rupe, petitioner,
Appellant, vs. Ryan Michael Rupe, Respondent.
Rice County District Court, Hon. John T. Cajacob.
1. Absent an indication that the district court intends to modify the physical custody of a minor child or change the primary residence of the child, an order modifying parenting time, so that the non-custodial parent has more parenting time than the custodial parent during the child's summer break from school and the custodial parent has more parenting time during the school year, is not a modification of custody or a change of the child's primary residence.
2. Where an alleged restriction arises solely from the amount of a change in parenting time, an order modifying the parenting time of the non-custodial parent so that parenting time is increased during the child's summer break from school and decreased during the school year, without a substantial modification of overall parenting time over the course of the year, is not a restriction of the custodial parent's parenting time.
3. When a modification of a parenting schedule treats holidays and other special days differently from the rest of the parenting schedule, resulting in the non-custodial parent having exclusive parenting time during all school breaks and on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day, the district court must make findings adequately explaining its apportionment of parenting time on those breaks, holidays and special days.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Judge Carol A. Hooten.
OPINIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN ADOBE PDF FORMAT
The Adobe Reader must be used to view or print the opinions.
Click here to download Adobe Reader free of charge.