EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
March 2022
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, February 28, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor
 

Ricky Lee McDeid, Appellant, Shane P. Garry, Appellant vs. Nancy Johnston, CEO/Director, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, et al., Respondents – Case Nos. A21-0042, A21-0043:  This consolidated appeal involves claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Appellants Ricky McDeid and Shane Garry were civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and received indeterminate commitments.  While residing at the secure treatment facility in Moose Lake, they petitioned the Commitment Appeal Panel, also known as the judicial appeal panel, for transfers to community preparation services.  See Minn. Stat. § 246B.01, subd. 2a (2020).  The Commitment Appeal Panel granted the transfer petitions but did not specify a time frame or deadline for the transfers.     
 
In November 2019, approximately 2 years after the transfer orders, appellants initiated district court actions against respondents Nancy Johnston, CEO/Director of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, and Jodi Harpstead, Commissioner of Human Services, in their individual capacities.  At the time, appellants still were residing at the Moose Lake facility and awaiting transfers to a less restrictive facility.  Among other claims, they alleged that the failure to transfer them to a less restrictive facility interfered with their constitutionally protected liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment, significantly delayed their treatment progress, and hindered their ability to advance toward provisional discharge and discharge.  While the district court actions were pending, appellants were transferred to a less restrictive facility.
 
The district court granted respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e).  The district court ruled in part that respondents are entitled to qualified immunity because appellants had not demonstrated that respondents violated a clearly established constitutional right.  The court of appeals consolidated the appeals and affirmed the district court’s rulings. 
 
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether appellants’ due process rights were clearly established; and (2) whether respondents are entitled to qualified immunity.  (Ramsey County)
 
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against John Timothy Hernandez, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0398836 – Case No. A21-0327:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
 

Tuesday, March 1, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 
State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Ron Wesley Epps, Respondent – Case No. A20-1151:  Respondent Ron Epps pleaded guilty to violating a domestic abuse no contact order.  As part of his plea, Epps did not personally admit that he had two previous qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions.  The State alleged the existence of such convictions in the criminal complaint and the presentence investigation (PSI) listed the convictions in question.  At the sentencing hearing, Epps moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that it was involuntary because his desire to get out of custody during the COVID-19 pandemic coerced him into pleading guilty.  The district court denied the motion and stayed execution of a 15-month sentence.
 
Epps filed an appeal in the court of appeals, arguing for the first time that his guilty plea was inaccurate because he never personally admitted the two prior convictions.  The State argued the guilty plea was accurate because the prior convictions were listed in the criminal complaint and PSI.  Concluding that evidence not expressly acknowledged and admitted by a defendant during the colloquy is not proper for a reviewing court to consider in a “typical” plea, the court of appeals reversed and remanded.
 
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) upon a challenge to the accuracy of a plea, what constitutes the record that can support a plea; and (2) does a manifest injustice exist where a defendant fails to state his prior qualifying convictions in his factual basis when the prior qualifying convictions are otherwise contained in the record?  (Hennepin County)
 
Nonoral:  Carlos Orlandos Smith, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A21-1095:  In 1994, a jury found appellant Carlos Smith guilty of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder.  For the aggravated robbery, the district court imposed a 96-month sentence, which reflected an upward durational departure.  For the first-degree murder, the court imposed a consecutive sentence of life without the possibility of release.  On direct appeal, this court affirmed Smith’s convictions and sentences.  Twenty-five years later, Smith filed a motion to correct his sentence that asserted several claims, including a claim that the district court violated Minn. Stat. § 609.035, which covers crimes punishable under different provisions, when it imposed separate sentences for his convictions of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder.  The district court denied the motion.
 
On appeal to the supreme court, appellant’s brief presents the following issues: (1) whether the district court erred when it denied his motion to correct his sentence as an untimely postconviction petition when he properly filed his motion under Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03 subd. 9; (2) whether the district court erred when it imposed separate sentences for the convictions of aggravated robbery and first-degree murder; (3) whether the State’s departure notice gave appellant adequate warning of the facts on which the State intended to rely in seeking an upward sentencing departure and a consecutive sentence; and (4) whether the 96-month sentence should be modified in the interest of fairness and uniformity.  (Ramsey County)
 

Wednesday, March 2, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 
Barbara Henry, Respondent/Cross-Appellant vs. Independent School District #625, a/k/a Saint Paul Public Schools, Appellant/Cross-Respondent – Case No. A21‑0004:  Respondent/cross-appellant Barbara Henry worked for Independent School District #625, Saint Paul Public Schools, as a network technician from 1997 until 2017.  The School District placed Henry on a performance improvement plan in 2016 and later advised her that it was considering terminating her employment.  She elected to retire in 2017 at the age of 57.
 
Henry asserted claims against the School District under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01–.44 (2020), for disparate-treatment age discrimination and an age-based hostile work environment.  The district court granted the School District’s motion for summary judgment, ruling in part that Henry had “voluntarily resigned her position without taking advantage” of the School District’s anti-discrimination policies.
 
The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.  The court of appeals concluded that “a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Henry was constructively discharged”; however, the record evidence is insufficient to establish an age-based hostile work environment. 
 
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are:  (1) whether a hostile work environment is a necessary element of Henry’s constructive discharge claim; (2) whether the Frieler-Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense—that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior, and the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any such opportunities—applies to a constructive discharge claim; (3) whether the court should recognize a “cumulative” adverse employment action theory as an independent theory apart from hostile work environments and constructive discharge claims; (4)  whether the  Frieler-Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense should apply to any “cumulative” adverse employment action theory recognized by the court; and (5) whether Henry created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether there was a hostile work environment.  (Ramsey County)
 
Nonoral:  Lincoln Lamar Caldwell, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A21-1292:  In 2008, appellant Lincoln Caldwell was convicted of first-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory of liability for the drive-by shooting death of Brian Cole.  Following his conviction, Caldwell filed three petitions for postconviction relief in 2009 and 2010.  On appeal, the supreme court affirmed Caldwell’s conviction and upheld the district court’s denial of Caldwell’s requests for postconviction relief. 
 
In 2012, Caldwell filed a fourth petition for postconviction relief.  Initially the district court summarily denied the petition, but the supreme court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.  On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition.  The supreme court affirmed. 
 
In 2020, Caldwell filed a fifth petition for post-conviction relief asserting newly discovered evidence claims.  The district court held an evidentiary hearing and then denied the petition.
 
On appeal to the supreme court, appellant’s brief presents the following issues:  (1) whether the newly discovered evidence claims presented in Caldwell’s fifth petition for postconviction relief have merit under the standard established in Ranier v. State, 566 N.W.2d 692 (Minn. 1997); and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in concluding Caldwell’s claims were time and procedurally barred.  (Hennepin County)   
 

Tuesday, March 8, 2022
Supreme Court Courtroom, State Capitol Building, Second Floor

 
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Kevin Lemar Jones, Appellant – Case Nos. A19-2096, A21-0510:  In September 2017, a grand jury indicted appellant Kevin Jones with several offenses, including first-degree murder.  The indictment alleged principal and aiding-and-abetting criminal liability.  Between October 2017 and July 2019, a number of court hearings were held.  Jones waived his right to a jury trial and submitted his case to the district court.  During the court trial, an eyewitness testified that Jones fatally shot the victim.  The district court found Jones guilty as charged and imposed a life sentence.  Jones filed a direct appeal, which was stayed to allow him to seek postconviction relief.  His postconviction petition alleged several claims, including a claim that trial counsel was ineffective.  The district court denied the postconviction petition.  
 
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective; (2) whether Jones’s right to a speedy trial was violated; (3) whether the State’s evidence was insufficient; (4) whether the district court committed reversible error when it admitted eyewitness identification evidence; and (5) whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied the postconviction petition.  (Hennepin County)