EN BANC CALENDAR

   
    State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. James Michael Green, Appellant – Case No. A05-336:  On appeal from his convictions on two counts of aiding and abetting first-degree felony murder and one count of aiding and abetting attempted first-degree felony-murder, appellant James Green presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that Green could be found guilty as an accomplice only if the murders were reasonably foreseeable to Green as a probable consequence of the underlying felony of aggravated robbery; (2) whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could consider evidence of Green’s flight as evidence of guilty intent; and (3) whether the cumulative effect of the alleged errors in the jury instructions deprived Green of a fair trial.  (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)

    State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Richard Lowell Bourke, Appellant – Case No. A04-1121:  Appellant Richard Bourke was arrested on controlled substance crime charges following a nighttime search of a barn executed pursuant to a search warrant.  The district court denied Bourke’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search in which Bourke challenged the nighttime search authorization in the warrant.  Bourke was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine.  The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that there is no constitutional protection against nighttime searches and therefore the police were not required to allege facts in the warrant application demonstrating a reasonable suspicion that the search could not be successfully completed during the daytime.  The issue on appeal is whether the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures prohibits nighttime searches unless law enforcement officials demonstrate reasonable suspicion that a nighttime search is necessary.  (On appeal from Isanti County District Court.)
    
    State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Andre Francis Hall, Appellant – Case No. A05-1534:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, appellant Andre Hall presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that it could find premeditation based on transferred intent to kill another person; (2) whether the district court erred in denying Hall’s post-trial motion for an evidentiary hearing on alleged juror misconduct; and (3) whether Hall’s right to a public trial was violated by the district court’s order excluding all children from the courtroom during the trial.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)

    Cassandra J. Jenkins, Appellant vs. American Express Financial Corporation, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent – Case No. A04-2308:  Appellant Cassandra Jenkins was sentenced to the workhouse for a criminal offense and was eligible for work release.  Jenkins understood that her employer, American Express Financial Corporation, would cooperate with her work release, but Jenkins was unable to leave the workhouse and report to work because American Express did not provide verification of her employment or otherwise cooperate.  American Express then terminated Jenkins for absenteeism.  Jenkins’ application for unemployment benefits was denied based on the conclusion that she was  voluntarily unemployed because her absence was attributable to her own conduct.  The court of appeals affirmed.  The issue on appeal is whether an employee’s absence is attributable to the employee’s own conduct where the absence was due to the employer’s failure to verify the employee’s employment as part of a work-release program.  (On appeal from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.) 
 
    In the Matter of the Cities of Annandale and Maple Lake MPDES/SDS Permit Issuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, and Request for Contested Case Hearing – Case No. A04-2033:  The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) granted a permit for a wastewater treatment facility that would ultimately discharge into Lake Pepin, an impaired body of water under federal regulations due to excess phosphorus.  The MPCA concluded that federal regulations barring such discharge into an impaired body of water did not prohibit the treatment facility because the discharge would be offset by a reduction in discharge from other sources.  The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) challenged the permit in the court of appeals and the court of appeals reversed, concluding that federal regulations establish a total ban on any level of discharge into an impaired body of water.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether a reviewing court should give deference to a state agency’s interpretation of a federal regulation the agency is required to implement and administer; and (2) whether federal regulations establish a total ban on any level of discharge into an impaired body of water.  (On appeal from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.)

    Stephen Danforth, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A04-1993:  On appeal from an order denying his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, appellant Stephen Danforth presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), applies retroactively because the decision’s holding that out-of-court testimonial statements are inadmissible in a criminal trial unless the defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant is not a new rule of law but rather is a clarification of what the Confrontation Clause always required; (2) if Crawford announced a new rule of law, whether it is a watershed rule that is fully retroactive.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
    
    State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Wintersun Lemieux, Appellant – Case No. A05-554:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Wintersun Lemieux presents the following issue for review:  whether the police had a valid basis for entering Lemieux’s residence without a warrant to conduct a “health and welfare” check on a person the police had been informed had not been in the residence for several months.  (On appeal from St. Louis County District Court.)

    In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Sergio Roberto Andrade, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 261750 – Case No. A06-426:  Attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of whether respondent should be suspended from the practice of law pending final determination of the disciplinary proceeding.

    NONORAL:  Shane Pierson, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-2030:  On appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Shane Pierson presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court erred in sentencing Pierson on the most severe offense for which he was convicted; and (2) whether the district court erred in ruling that Pierson’s postconviction petition was procedurally barred because the sentencing issue was known at the time of the direct appeal.  (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)

    NONORAL:  Justin Brooks Stiles, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-2081:  On appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Justin Stiles presents the following issue for review:  whether the district court’s denial of Stiles’ motion to have lesser-included offenses submitted to the jury violated Stiles’ right to a jury trial.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
   
    State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Leonard NMN Goodloe, Appellant – Case No. A05-1519:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, appellant Leonard Goodloe presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the state established premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) whether the district court erred in its instruction on the element of premeditation; and (3) whether the district court erred in its instructions to the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree intentional murder.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)
 
    Richard Brian Bruestle, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-1707:  On appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree murder, appellant Richard Bruestle presents the following issue for review:  whether the district court erred in summarily denying the petition for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing on Bruestle’s claim that his guilty plea was invalid due to (1) his mental health condition and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.  (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)

    NONORAL:  Piney Ridge Lodge, Inc., Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A05-2387:  The Tax Court dismissed relator Piney Ridge Lodge’s appeal from a Notice of Change in Tax on the grounds Piney Ridge Lodge failed to timely file its appeal and its informal negotiations with the Commissioner of Revenue did not extend the appeal period.  The issue on appeal is whether the Tax Court erred in dismissing the appeal.  (On appeal from the Tax Court.)
 
    In the Matter of Detailing Criteria and Standards for Measuring an Electric Utility’s Good Faith Efforts in Meeting the Renewable Energy Objectives Under Minn. Stat. § 216B.1691 – Case No. A04-1742:  The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ruled that the Renewable Energy Objectives Statute, Minn. Stat. § 216B.1691 (2004), permitted electric utilities to count preexisting renewable energy resources toward the annual one percent increase in renewable energy required by the statute.  Appellants Izaak Walton League for America, Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy appealed the decision to the court of appeals.  The court of appeals affirmed.  The issue on appeal is whether the Public Utilities Commission erred in its interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 216B.1691.  (On appeal from the Public Utilities Commission.)

    Christopher P. Schermer, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants vs. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al., Respondents – Case Nos. A04-2054 & A04-2088:  Appellants Christopher Schermer and others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit seeking a refund of surcharges imposed by respondent State Farm Fire and Casualty Company on homeowner insurance policies that appellants allege were based on the age of the home in violation of Minn. Stat. § 72A.20, subd. 13 (2004).  The district court granted State Farm summary judgment on the grounds there is no private cause of action for a violation of Minn. Stat. § 72A.20, subd. 13, and the “filed rate doctrine” barred appellants’ claims because they were charged rates consistent with the rates filed with the Department of Commerce.  The court of appeals affirmed.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether a private cause of action exists for a violation of Minn. Stat. § 72A.20, subd. 13; and (2) whether the filed rate doctrine applies to appellants’ claims.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.) 
 
    State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Todd Skipintheday, Respondent – Case No. A04-1293:  Respondent Todd Skipintheday pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting first-degree murder, aiding and abetting second-degree murder, and aiding and abetting first-degree assault for the benefit of a gang based on his involvement in the offenses as an accomplice after the fact.  The district court sentenced Skipintheday to consecutive terms on all three counts under the multiple-victim exception to the rule that only one sentence may be imposed for multiple crimes arising out of the same behavioral incident.  On appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for resentencing on a single count because there were no victims to Skipintheday’s after-the-fact crimes.  The issues on appeal are:  (1) whether a defendant convicted of multiple aiding-and-abetting offenses may be sentenced to multiple terms under the multiple-victim exception to the same-behavioral-incident rule; and (2) whether aiding-and-abetting offenses based on liability as an accomplice after the fact are crimes against a person for which consecutive sentences may be imposed.  (On appeal from Redwood County District Court.)

    In re:  Charges of Unprofessional Conduct Involving File No. 17139, a Minnesota Attorney, In Panel Case No. 20783 – Case No. A05-1955:  The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility issued charges of unprofessional conduct against an attorney alleging that the attorney made false statements about his opponent in a judicial election.  The attorney asserted as a defense that he had relied on information provided by reliable “inside sources” in making the statements but refused to disclose the identity of the sources.  The district court denied the Director’s motion to compel disclosure.  The issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in finding that the Director’s request for disclosure was not a “reasonable request” under Rule 25, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility.  
 
    NONORAL:  Michael Gary Lee, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-1375:  On appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief from his convictions for first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder, appellant Michael Lee presents the following issue for review:  whether the district court erred in summarily denying the petition for postconviction relief on the ground the sentencing issue raised in the petition had already been raised on direct appeal.  (On appeal from Ramsey County District Court.)