EN
BANC CALENDAR
Before
the Minnesota Supreme Court
March
2015
SUMMARY
OF ISSUES
Summaries
prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, March 2, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Alton Dominique Finch,
Appellant – Case No. A14-0203: Appellant
Alton Finch was convicted of second-degree assault. The district court imposed a 36-month stayed
sentence, which was a dispositional departure.
Respondent State of Minnesota sought to revoke appellant’s probation
after appellant did not return to a Hennepin County corrections facility from
an approved medical furlough. The day before his probation-violation hearing,
appellant filed a motion asking the district court judge to disqualify herself
on the grounds of bias and partiality, or in the alternative, to refer the
disqualification motion to the chief judge. The district court judge denied the
disqualification motion. Following an
evidentiary hearing on the probation violation, the district court revoked
appellant’s probation and executed his sentence. The court of appeals affirmed
the revocation of appellant’s probation.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether the district court judge erred by not referring
appellant’s motion to disqualify to the chief district court judge for
consideration. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Gregory Gerard
McPhee, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 316696 – Case No. A14-1901: An attorney discipline case that presents the
question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the
matter.
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against William L. French, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 131945 – Case No. A14-0143:
An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what
discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Wednesday, March 4,
2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Robert John Meyers,
Appellant – Case No. A13-1313: Appellant Robert Meyers was convicted of
first-degree assault. The State filed a
motion for an upward durational sentencing departure, citing Minn. Sent.
Guidelines 2.D.3.b(3), which allows an upward departure when the current
conviction is for an offense in which
the victim was otherwise injured, and the offender has a prior felony
conviction for a criminal sexual conduct offense. Meyers argued that Minn. Sent. Guidelines
2.D.3.b(3), did not apply in his case because injury to the victim was a
necessary element of the current offense.
The district court granted the State’s motion, and the court of appeals
affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the
issue presented is whether Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(3) should be limited
to violence used in crimes where violence is not an element of the crime. (Hennepin County)
Marcia
Lee Stresemann, d/b/a Affiliated Counseling Center, LLC, Appellant, vs. Lucinda
Jesson, et al., Respondents – Case No. A13-1967: Appellant Marcia Lee
Stresemann, d/b/a Affiliated Counseling Center, LLC (ACC), provides
mental-health counseling services.
Respondent Catharine Morton-Peters, the chief investigator for the
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office,
investigated allegations of fraudulent billing practices at ACC. After a search warrant was executed at ACC premises,
appellant brought a civil lawsuit against Morton-Peters and other governmental
defendants, which asserted, among other claims, tort claims for conversion and
trespass to chattels. The district court
denied a motion to dismiss the conversion and trespass claims on the basis of
prosecutorial immunity. The court of
appeals reversed, concluding that Morton-Peters is entitled to prosecutorial
immunity based on the statutory authority of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
“to investigate and prosecute violations relating to the Medicaid
program.”
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented
is whether and under what circumstances prosecutorial immunity protects an
investigator working in the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Minnesota
Attorney General’s Office. (Anoka County
District Court)
Monday, March 9, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
Connexus Energy, et al., Relators vs. Commissioner of Revenue,
Respondent – Case No. A14-1996: Relators
are electric cooperatives that billed members monthly for electricity services
charges. Included in the monthly charge,
though not separately stated, was an amount attributable to the member’s
capital credit. After capital credits were allocated back to members, relators filed
amended sales tax returns to obtain refunds on taxes paid on capital-credit
amounts. The Commissioner of Revenue initially granted the refund claims, but
then determined the realtors were not entitled to the refunds and assessed the
realtors the amounts erroneously refunded.
Relators appealed the assessment to the tax court,
arguing that the amounts provided to the cooperatives by members as capital
contributions are not subject to Minnesota sales tax. Following a trial, the tax court affirmed the
Commissioner’s assessments.
On appeal to the supreme court, the primary issue is
whether the amounts provided to the cooperatives by members as capital
contributions are subject to Minnesota sales tax. (Minnesota Tax Court)
Nonoral: Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant
vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-1692: In 2007, appellant Eugene Fort was convicted
of first-degree premeditated murder. His
conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a subsequent petition for
postconviction relief was denied. In his
second postconviction petition, Fort asserts claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel and sufficiency of the evidence.
The postconviction court summarily denied the second petition.
On
appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether Fort’s second postconviction
petition was barred by the postconviction statute of limitations and/or the
rule announced in State v. Knaffla, 303
Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976).
(Hennepin County)
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Courtroom 300,
Minnesota Judicial Center
In
re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David A. Overboe, a Minnesota
Attorney, Registration No. 83318 – Case No. A14-1607: An attorney discipline case
that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on
the facts of the matter.
Nonoral: Harry Jerome Evans, petitioner,
Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – A14-1402: In 2006, appellant Harry Evans was convicted
of first-degree murder of a peace officer. His conviction was affirmed on
direct appeal and a subsequent petition for postconviction relief was denied. In 2014, Evans filed in Ramsey County
District Court a “Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 60(b).” The postconviction court construed the motion
as a second postconviction petition.
Concluding that the second petition was procedurally barred, the postconviction
court summarily denied the second petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether
Evans’s motion was barred by the postconviction statute of limitations and/or
the rule announced in State v. Knaffla,
303 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976).
(Ramsey County)
Wednesday, March 11,
2015
University of Minnesota
Law School
State
of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Roger Earl Holland, Appellant – Case No. A14-0427:
A grand jury indicted appellant Roger Holland with several felonies,
including first-degree premeditated murder.
Before trial Holland moved to suppress evidence obtained as a direct or
indirect result of a warrantless search of his cell phone. The district court denied the suppression
motion and scheduled a jury trial. The
court subsequently dismissed one of the jurors on the grounds of emotional
instability. The jury found Holland
guilty as charged and the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
On appeal to the supreme
court, the issues are (1) whether the district court improperly admitted
evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of the warrantless search of
his cell phone, and (2) whether the district court improperly dismissed the
juror without holding an evidentiary hearing.
(Dakota County)