EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
June 2010
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

EN BANC NONORAL:  Detroit Davis, Jr., petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A09-1983:  Petitioner Detroit Davis, Jr., was convicted in 2006 of first- and second-degree felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Davis, 735 N.SW.2d 674 (Minn. 2007).  In 2009, Davis filed a petition for postconviction relief.  Davis asserted, among other things, that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal.  The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.  On Davis’ appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether the district court erred in denying the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.  (Hennepin County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Harry Jerome Evans, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A10-160:  Petitioner Harry Evans was convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder of a peace officer; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Evans, 756 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. 2008).  In 2009, Evans petitioned for postconviction relief.  Evans claimed that, as part of an investigation into an unrelated crime, police had learned that a man who had testified against Evans at trial had, in a conversation with a third man, implicated himself in the murder for which Evans was convicted.  Evans asked the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office for copies of all statements and other documents related to his case.  The Ramsey County Attorney’s Office declined Evans’ request.  The district court denied Evans’ postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.  Evans then filed a petition in district court to require disclosure of the statement of the man who had talked to the man who had testified against Evans.  The district court denied Evans’ petition.  On Evans’ appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether the district court erred in denying the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing and in denying Evans’ request for production of the statement.  Evans asserts other claims, including that he received the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; that he was not advised of his rights upon arrest; that because his name was listed on the criminal complaint and warrant in capital letters he was not “truly named” in it; that the district court never had personal jurisdiction over him; and that police procedures following a suspect’s arrest (such as taking his picture and fingerprints) amount to unconstitutional self-incrimination.  (Ramsey County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Michael Carrasco Sontoya, Appellant – Case No. A09-1480:  Appellant Michael Sontoya was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder, committed during the course of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.  On appeal from his conviction, Sontoya contends that it was plain error for the district court to allow the medical examiner to testify that the victim died from injuries due to a sexual assault, because that is an element of the charged offense.  Sontoya raises additional issues in a pro se supplemental brief.  (Ramsey County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Brian Lee Flowers, Appellant – Case No. A09-1359:  Appellant Brian Flowers was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.  On appeal from his conviction, Flowers presents the following issues to the supreme court:  (1) whether Flowers was in custody, and therefore entitled to be advised of his Miranda rights, when he was questioned at the police station; (2) whether the district court erred in its instructions to the jury; and (3) whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him.  (Hennepin County)

Imperial Developers, Inc., Plaintiff vs. Calhoun Development, LLC, Respondent, Regal Custom Homes, Inc., et al., Defendants, Lind Homes, Inc., Respondent, Thompson Plumbing Corp., Respondent, Great Northern I, Inc., Respondent, Southview Design & Construction, Inc., Respondent, BankFirst, Appellant, and The Woodshop of Avon, Inc., additional defendant, Respondent, and Scherer Bros. Lumber Co., intervening defendant and third-party plaintiff, Respondent vs. Matthew Lind, et al., Third-Party Defendants, and Simonson Lumber of Ham Lake, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff vs. Contractors Capital Corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants, Appellants – Case No. A08-1883:  This appeal involves foreclosure claims against residential development property in Eden Prairie, which is Torrens (registered) property.  Subcontractors who performed work on the site claim interests based on their mechanics’ liens, and BankFirst claims an interest in the property based on a mortgage.  On appeal to the supreme court, the issues are:  (1) whether a mortgage on Torrens property becomes “of record” for purposes of priority when it is filed with the county registrar of titles, or only after it is memorialized on the certificate of title; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in declining to consider whether the mechanics’ liens were invalidated in their entirety by failure to serve pre-lien notice on the record owner listed on the certificate of title in effect at the commencement of the improvements.  (Hennepin County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Kevin E. Burns, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A09-466:  In 2004, petitioner Kevin E. Burns applied under Minn. Stat. § 290A.04 (2008) for a refund of property taxes assessed on a home in Apple Valley, Minnesota.  Section 290A.04 allows for a refund of property taxes to the extent that they exceed a certain percentage of household income, provided that the claimant owns and occupies the property on January 2 of the year in which the tax is payable.  Minn. Stat. § 290A.03, subd. 13 (2008).  After the Commissioner of Revenue determined that Burns did not own or occupy the Apple Valley property as his homestead on January 2, 2004, the Commissioner ordered Burns to reimburse the state for the refund, plus interest.  Burns appealed the Commissioner’s determination to the Minnesota Tax Court, which affirmed.  On Burns’ appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether the tax court erred in affirming the Commissioner’s order.  (Minnesota Tax Court)

Brian Doyle Scherf, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A08-1566:  Petitioner Brian Scherf and his then-roommate were separately charged in 2005 with second-degree burglary and theft.  Scherf’s roommate entered an Alford plea but failed to appear for sentencing and was at-large during Scherf’s trial for the same burglary.  At trial, Scherf argued that the burglary had been committed by his then-roommate, acting alone.  The jury found Scherf guilty; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Scherf, A06-1543, 2008 WL 170702 (Minn. App. Jan. 22, 2008), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 2008).  Shortly after Scherf’s conviction became final, Scherf’s roommate signed an affidavit attesting that he alone had committed the burglary for which Scherf had been convicted.  Scherf petitioned for postconviction relief, claiming that the roommate’s affidavit was newly discovered evidence warranting vacation of Scherf’s convictions or an evidentiary hearing.  The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing; the court of appeals affirmed.  On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether the district court erred in denying the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing.  (Itasca County)

EN BANC NONORAL:  Gary L. Roby, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A10-399:  Petitioner Gary Roby was convicted of first-degree murder; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Roby, 463 N.W.2d 506 (Minn. 1990).  The denials of Roby’s first two petitions for postconviction relief were affirmed on appeal.  Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354 (Minn. 1996); Roby v. State, 531 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 1995).  In 2009, Roby petitioned a third time for postconviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel.  The district court denied the petition as untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4 (2008), which bars the filing of a petition for postconviction relief more than two years after an appellate court’s disposition of the petitioner’s direct appeal.  Section 590.01, subd. 4, permits the district court to hear a petition for postconviction relief under certain specified circumstances, but the district court ruled that Roby’s petition did not satisfy any of those circumstances.  On appeal to the supreme court, Roby presents several issues, including:  (1) whether the district court erred in denying the postconviction petition without an evidentiary hearing; (2) whether the two-year statute of limitations under section 590.01, subd. 4, can be equitably tolled; (3) whether the State of Minnesota should be equitably estopped from asserting the two-year statute of limitations under section 590.01 because it impeded or interfered with Roby’s ability to timely file a petition for postconviction relief; and (4) whether Roby is entitled to a new trial.  (Ramsey County)