EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
March 2013
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Malena Maria Barrientos, Respondent – Case No. A12-0150:  Respondent Malena Barrientos pleaded guilty to burglary.  The district court stayed execution of sentence and placed Barrientos on probation for 5 years.  The conditions of her probation included payment of restitution. 

Before Barrientos’s probation expired, appellant State of Minnesota moved to extend her probation for an additional 5 years because a substantial amount of restitution remained unpaid.  Construing Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(g) (2012), as authorizing only a 1-year extension of probation, the district court denied the State’s request for a 5-year extension.  The court of appeals affirmed. 

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Minn. Stat. § 609.135, subd. 2(g), authorizes only a 1-year extension of probation when a defendant fails to pay restitution.  (Freeborn County). 

            Jane Kay Dukowitz, Appellant vs. Hannon Security Services, Respondent – Case No. A11-1481:  Appellant Jane Dukowitz was employed by respondent Hannon Security Services.  After her hours were reduced, she applied for unemployment benefits.  Hannon later terminated her employment.  Dukowitz sued Hannon, claiming that Hannon unlawfully terminated her employment in retaliation for her application for unemployment benefits.  The district court granted Hannon’s motion for summary judgment.  It also awarded Hannon $1,361 in costs and disbursements, notwithstanding Dukowitz’s in forma pauperis status.  The court of appeals affirmed.  

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Dukowitz has stated a viable claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; and (2) whether the district court may consider a party’s indigent status in taxing costs and disbursements.  (Stearns County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jose Miguel Chavarria-Cruz, Appellant – Case No. A11-1181:  Appellant Jose Miguel Chavarria-Cruz was indicted in October 2006 for first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree premeditated murder committed for the benefit of a gang.  A jury acquitted Chavarria-Cruz of the first-degree murder charges, but it found him guilty of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree intentional murder, second-degree intentional murder for the benefit of a gang, second-degree unintentional murder, and second-degree unintentional murder for the benefit of a gang.  The district court sentenced Chavarria-Cruz on the second-degree intentional murder count to 350 months in prison.  Chavarria-Cruz appealed, and the supreme court reversed his conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that Chavarria-Cruz’s right to counsel had been violated during police interrogation. 

On remand, the district court granted the State’s request for leave to again present the case to the grand jury.  The grand jury indicted Chavarria-Cruz for first-degree felony murder in the course of committing aggravated robbery, first-degree felony murder for the benefit of a gang, second-degree intentional murder, and second-degree intentional murder for the benefit of a gang.  The district court denied Chavarria-Cruz’s pretrial motion to dismiss both first-degree murder charges on constitutional and statutory double jeopardy grounds.  A jury eventually found Chavarria-Cruz guilty of all charges, and the district court once again sentenced Chavarria-Cruz on the second-degree intentional murder count to 350 months in prison.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether re-prosecution of Chavarria-Cruz for first-degree felony murder, following his acquittal of first-degree premeditated murder for the same conduct, violated constitutional and statutory double jeopardy protections; and (2) whether the testimony of an alleged accomplice was sufficiently corroborated to prove Chavarria-Cruz’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  (Hennepin County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Bryan Paul Ness, Appellant – Case Nos. A12-0290, A12-0291:  Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Bryan Ness with violating a domestic abuse no contact order.  Before trial, Ness moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 629.75 (2012), which authorizes a district court to issue a domestic abuse no contact order, was vague and facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions.  The district court granted Ness’s motion.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Minn. Stat. § 629.75 is facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions because it fails to provide meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard; and (2) whether Minn. Stat. § 629.75 is unconstitutionally vague.  (Clay County)

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Derrick Trevor Griffin, Appellant – Case No. A12-0823:  Following a jury trial, appellant Derrick Griffin was convicted of first-degree murder.  On appeal of that conviction to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether Griffin is entitled to a new trial because the district court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence a statement Griffin’s wife made on the evening of the murder; and (2) whether the district court erroneously denied Griffin’s motion to suppress his cell phone records.  (Hennepin County)

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Hugh D. Jaeger, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 49529 – Case No. A12-1184:  An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter. 

            Jaime Rasmussen, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants vs. Two Harbors Fish Company d/b/a Lou’s Fish House, et al., Appellants – Case No. A11-2178:  Jaime Rasmussen, Jennifer Moyer, and Kathe Reinhold brought hostile work environment claims against Two Harbors Fish Co. and BWZ Enterprises, as well as Brian Zapolski, the owner and sole shareholder of the two businesses.  The plaintiffs claimed that Zapolski had sexually harassed them in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.01–.43 (2012).  Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed the claims.  The district court found that Zapolski had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but determined that the conduct did not constitute sexual harassment because it was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiffs’ employment.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court erred by determining that Zapolski’s inappropriate conduct was not actionable sexual harassment because it was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect a term or condition of employment; and (2) whether Zapolski, as the owner and sole shareholder of the employers, can be individually liable for aiding and abetting a violation of the MHRA.  (Lake County)

Nonoral:       Sharon A. Soyka, Relator vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A12-1706:  On January 19, 2012, respondent Commissioner of Revenue issued an order assessing relator Sharon Soyka individual income taxes, penalties, and interest owed for the 2007 tax year.  Soyka appealed the January 19 order to the Minnesota Tax Court.  The tax court determined that Soyka’s appeal was untimely because it was filed more than 60 days after the Commissioner’s decision being appealed.  The tax court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Soyka’s appeal and dismissed it.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the tax court erred when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Soyka’s appeal.  (Minnesota Tax Court)                    

            In re Petition for Reinstatement to the Practice of Law of Daniel Martin Lieber, a Minnesota Attorney – Case No. A10-1705:  An attorney reinstatement matter that presents the issue of whether disbarred attorney Daniel Lieber should be reinstated to the practice of law.

            Nonoral:       Michael Wayne, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A12-0868:  In 1987, appellant Michael Wayne was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial.  Wayne’s conviction was affirmed by the supreme court on direct appeal.  Wayne has also filed several postconviction petitions; the district court denied those petitions, and the supreme court affirmed those postconviction orders.  In February 2012, Wayne filed another petition for postconviction relief in which he requested DNA testing.  The district court summarily denied this petition.

            On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that the claims in Wayne’s February 2012 postconviction petition were procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 243 N.W.2d 737 (1976); and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that the claims in Wayne’s February 2012 postconviction petition were untimely under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2012).  (Waseca County)

            Amos Graves, Respondent vs. Michael Wayman, et al., Respondents, REA Group, Inc., Respondent, C&M Real Estate Services Group, Inc., Respondent, Trademark Properties Group, LLC, Respondent, First Minnesota Bank, Appellant – Case No. A11-1521:  In 2007, Wells Fargo foreclosed its mortgage on the home of respondent Amos Graves.  During the 6-month redemption period that followed the sheriff’s sale, Graves met with respondent Michael Wayman, who owned respondents REA Group, Inc. and C&M Real Estate Services Group, Inc.  In an attempt to save the house, Wayman signed a number of documents, including a quitclaim deed, a purchase agreement, and a rent-back agreement.  Although Wayman claims that he canceled the transaction the next day, he made payments under the rent-back agreement, and REA recorded the quitclaim deed.  Following additional transactions between REA and C&M, appellant First Minnesota Bank loaned C&M money to redeem the property from foreclosure, which was secured by a mortgage on the property.  C&M defaulted on the loan, and First Minnesota foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the property at a sheriff’s sale. 

            Graves commenced this action, seeking to regain his home.  Graves alleged multiple violations of mortgage, lending, and consumer protection laws.  First Minnesota’s primary defense was that it was a bona fide purchaser of the property.  The district court ultimately concluded that First Minnesota is “the owner of the premises free and clear of any encumbrances of other parties.”  The court of appeals reversed and remanded.

On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether First Minnesota was a bona fide purchaser under Minnesota’s Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 325N.10–.18 (2012); and (2) whether any cancellation by Graves of his transactions with Wayman effected First Minnesota’s interest in the property.  (Ramsey County)

Timothy Patrick Chambers, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A11-1954:  In 1997, appellant Timothy Chambers was convicted of first-degree murder, and the district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release.  Chambers was 17 years old at the time of the murder.  The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed Chambers’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.  In May 2010, Chambers filed his second petition for postconviction relief, in which he challenged the constitutionality of his life sentence without the possibility of release.  The district court denied the postconviction petition, and Chambers appealed that order. 

While Chambers’s appeal of the postconviction order was pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).  The Minnesota Supreme Court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the impact of Miller on Chambers’s claims for relief asserted in his postconviction petition.

            The issue to be addressed at oral argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court is whether Miller v. Alabama applies to Chambers’s life sentence.  (Rice County)