EN BANC CALENDAR

 
            Jane Doe 136, Appellant vs. Ralph Liebsch – Case No. A14-0275:  Respondent Ralph Liebsch pleaded guilty to criminal sexual conduct pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) and State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1977).  By his Alford plea Liebsch maintained his innocence but agreed that the State of Minnesota was likely to offer evidence at trial that would be sufficient for a jury to convict him.  Appellant Doe then commenced the current tort action against Liebsch based on the same factual allegations that were at issue in the criminal case.  The district court granted Liebsch’s motion to exclude evidence of his guilty plea from the jury, ruling that collateral estoppel did not operate to bar Liebsch from denying his guilt, and further ruling that under Minnesota Rule of Evidence 403, the probative value of the guilty plea would be outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Liebsch.         The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling excluding evidence of the guilty plea. 
            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether it is appropriate to present evidence in a civil jury trial of a defendant’s prior Alfordplea, either as substantive evidence or for purposes of impeachment.  (Washington County)
 
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Dale Allen Hansen, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 217840 – Case No. A14-2061:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
 
            State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Miranda Lynn Jones, Respondent – Case No. A14-1399:  Respondent Miranda Jones was convicted of fourth-degree controlled-substance crime in December 2013.  The district court stayed Jones’s sentence and placed her on supervised probation for 10 years.  Conditions of Jones’s probation require that she refrain from using alcohol and remain law-abiding.
            During the early hours of May 31, 2014, a Polk County deputy responded to a report that an intoxicated female, later identified as Jones, was running down the street, screaming, and refusing to return to her house.  Jones was arrested and charged by citation with three misdemeanors, including contempt of court, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4) (2014), which states that a person who engages in “willful disobedience to the lawful process or other mandate of a court” is “guilty of a misdemeanor.” 
            Jones filed a motion to dismiss the contempt charge for lack of probable cause, arguing, in part, that a probation agreement is not an “other mandate of a court.” The district court granted Jones’s motion and dismissed the contempt-of-court charge. The court of appeals affirmed.
            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether a person may be charged with misdemeanor contempt of court, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 588.20, subd. 2(4), based on an alleged violation of a condition of probation.  (Polk County)
            State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant vs. Angela Mary Lennartson, Respondent, Katie Foss, Respondent – Case Nos. A14-0132, A14-0224:  Respondents Angela Mary Lennartson and Katie Foss were injured in separate automobile accidents.  Each had no-fault medical coverage through appellant State Farm.  Each respondent received no-fault medical benefits from State Farm for a time before State Farm separately discontinued their benefits.  Lennartson and Foss were each informed of their right to seek arbitration.  Instead, they separately brought negligence suits against the drivers of the other cars involved in their actions, and each obtained a jury award in her favor, which was then reduced by the no-fault benefits she had already received.  They separately petitioned for no-fault arbitration against State Farm, seeking additional economic-loss benefits, and obtained favorable arbitration awards. 
The district court in Lennartson’s case vacated her award, reasoning that the public policy behind the No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 54B.41-.71 (2014), prevented her from recovering the same expenses she had already recovered in her negligence suit.  The district court in Foss’s case, however, confirmed her arbitration award.  The cases were consolidated for appeal, and the court of appeals ruled that both awards should have been confirmed.
            On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether respondents’ no-fault arbitrations, brought after respondents had already litigated economic-loss damages in a negligence action, are barred by either the No-Fault Act or collateral estoppel.  (Washington County, Ramsey County)
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
 
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Lynne A. Torgerson, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 208322 – Case No. A13-2305: An attorney discipline matter that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Nonoral:       Darryl Colbert, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-2165:  In 2005, a jury found appellant Darryl Colbert guilty of first-degree murder.  Colbert’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  Colbert has filed several prior petitions for postconviction relief, all of which were denied.
Colbert filed a petition for postconviction relief in 2014 and asked for a new trial.  He claimed to have newly discovered evidence and that the district court erroneously denied a Schwartz hearing based on alleged juror misconduct.  The district court summarily denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Colbert’s claims are time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2014); (2) whether Colbert’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976); (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Colbert’s request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Colbert’s request for a new trial based on juror misconduct.  (Hennepin County)
Thursday, June 4, 2015
 
Nonoral:        Prentis Cordell Jackson, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-2060:  In 2006, a jury found appellant Prentis Jackson guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.  Jackson was 17 years old when the shooting occurred.  The district court sentenced Jackson to a life sentence without the possibility of release.  Jackson’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2013, Jackson filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based on recanted trial testimony from Alfred Lamar and that his sentence violated his Eighth Amendment rights.  The district court held an evidentiary hearing, at which Lamar asserted his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to testify. The district court ruled that prior written and oral statements Lamar had made about his trial testimony were not admissible at the evidentiary hearing.  The district court denied the petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues presented are: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling Lamar’s out-of-court statements regarding his trial testimony were not admissible as statements against penal interest; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a new trial based on recanted trial testimony; (3) whether the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applies retroactively to Jackson’s case; and (4) whether Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, or Minn. Stat. §§ 244.11, subd. 2, or 590.01, subd. 1 (2014), authorize the supreme court to vacate Jackson’s life sentence without the possibility of release.  (Hennepin County)
Nonoral:       Otha Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-1970 and Otha Eric Townsend, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A15-0158:  In 1994, appellant Otha Eric Townsend was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of release. Seven months later, he pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder and was sentenced to an additional 72 months in prison, to run consecutively to his life sentence.  The district court granted Townsend 597 days of jail credit against his 72-month sentence.  Townsend’s first-degree murder conviction was upheld on direct appeal.  Townsend has filed several petitions for postconviction relief, all of which have been denied.
In August 2014, Townsend filed a petition for postconviction relief, arguing he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel in his direct appeal, and a motion for correction of sentence, arguing that 373 days of custody credit should be added to his life sentence. The district court summarily denied the petition for postconviction relief and denied the motion for correction of sentence. 
On appeal to the supreme court in Case No. A14-1970, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Townsend’s petition for postconviction relief is time barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2014); (2) whether Townsend’s claims are procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976); and (3) whether Townsend was prohibited from raising several claims in his direct appeal because of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
On appeal to the supreme court in Case No. A15-0158, the issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Townsend’s motion to correct his sentence.  (Ramsey County)
Nonoral:       State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jerome Deon Nunn, petitioner, Appellant – Case No. A14-1767:  In 1995, appellant Jerome Nunn was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder for a July 22, 1995 shooting in which one person was killed and another was injured. The district court sentenced Nunn to life in prison for first-degree murder and a consecutive sentence of 180 months for attempted first-degree murder.  In April 2014, Nunn filed a motion to correct his sentence, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9, challenging the imposition of consecutive sentences.  The district court  denied the motion.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the imposition of consecutive sentences for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder committed against different victims was lawful; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that Nunn had provided no evidence to support his claim that his right to equal protection was violated when he was sentenced.  (Hennepin County)