Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
March 2015
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, March 2, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Alton Dominique Finch, Appellant – Case No. A14-0203: Appellant Alton Finch was convicted of second-degree assault. The district court imposed a 36-month stayed sentence, which was a dispositional departure. Respondent State of Minnesota sought to revoke appellant’s probation after appellant did not return to a Hennepin County corrections facility from an approved medical furlough. The day before his probation-violation hearing, appellant filed a motion asking the district court judge to disqualify herself on the grounds of bias and partiality, or in the alternative, to refer the disqualification motion to the chief judge. The district court judge denied the disqualification motion. Following an evidentiary hearing on the probation violation, the district court revoked appellant’s probation and executed his sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the revocation of appellant’s probation.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether the district court judge erred by not referring appellant’s motion to disqualify to the chief district court judge for consideration. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Robert John Meyers, Appellant – Case No. A13-1313: Appellant Robert Meyers was convicted of first-degree assault. The State filed a motion for an upward durational sentencing departure, citing Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(3), which allows an upward departure when the current conviction is for an offense in which the victim was otherwise injured, and the offender has a prior felony conviction for a criminal sexual conduct offense. Meyers argued that Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(3), did not apply in his case because injury to the victim was a necessary element of the current offense. The district court granted the State’s motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.3.b(3) should be limited to violence used in crimes where violence is not an element of the crime. (Hennepin County)
Marcia Lee Stresemann, d/b/a Affiliated Counseling Center, LLC, Appellant, vs. Lucinda Jesson, et al., Respondents – Case No. A13-1967: Appellant Marcia Lee Stresemann, d/b/a Affiliated Counseling Center, LLC (ACC), provides mental-health counseling services. Respondent Catharine Morton-Peters, the chief investigator for the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, investigated allegations of fraudulent billing practices at ACC. After a search warrant was executed at ACC premises, appellant brought a civil lawsuit against Morton-Peters and other governmental defendants, which asserted, among other claims, tort claims for conversion and trespass to chattels. The district court denied a motion to dismiss the conversion and trespass claims on the basis of prosecutorial immunity. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Morton-Peters is entitled to prosecutorial immunity based on the statutory authority of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit “to investigate and prosecute violations relating to the Medicaid program.”
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether and under what circumstances prosecutorial immunity protects an investigator working in the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. (Anoka County District Court)
Monday, March 9, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Connexus Energy, et al., Relators vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Respondent – Case No. A14-1996:
Relators are electric cooperatives that billed members monthly for electricity services charges. Included in the monthly charge, though not separately stated, was an amount attributable to the member’s capital credit. After capital credits were allocated back to members, relators filed amended sales tax returns to obtain refunds on taxes paid on capital-credit amounts. The Commissioner of Revenue initially granted the refund claims, but then determined the realtors were not entitled to the refunds and assessed the realtors the amounts erroneously refunded.
Relators appealed the assessment to the tax court, arguing that the amounts provided to the cooperatives by members as capital contributions are not subject to Minnesota sales tax. Following a trial, the tax court affirmed the Commissioner’s assessments.
On appeal to the supreme court, the primary issue is whether the amounts provided to the cooperatives by members as capital contributions are subject to Minnesota sales tax. (Minnesota Tax Court)
Nonoral:
Eugene Erick Fort, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-1692: In 2007, appellant Eugene Fort was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a subsequent petition for postconviction relief was denied. In his second postconviction petition, Fort asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and sufficiency of the evidence. The postconviction court summarily denied the second petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether Fort’s second postconviction petition was barred by the postconviction statute of limitations and/or the rule announced in
State v. Knaffla, 303 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David A. Overboe, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 83318 – Case No. A14-1607: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Nonoral:
Harry Jerome Evans, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – A14-1402: In 2006, appellant Harry Evans was convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a subsequent petition for postconviction relief was denied. In 2014, Evans filed in Ramsey County District Court a “Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 60(b).” The postconviction court construed the motion as a second postconviction petition. Concluding that the second petition was procedurally barred, the postconviction court summarily denied the second petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue is whether Evans’s motion was barred by the postconviction statute of limitations and/or the rule announced in
State v. Knaffla, 303 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). (Ramsey County)
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
University of Minnesota Law School
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Roger Earl Holland, Appellant – Case No. A14-0427: A grand jury indicted appellant Roger Holland with several felonies, including first-degree premeditated murder. Before trial Holland moved to suppress evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of a warrantless search of his cell phone. The district court denied the suppression motion and scheduled a jury trial. The court subsequently dismissed one of the jurors on the grounds of emotional instability. The jury found Holland guilty as charged and the court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues are (1) whether the district court improperly admitted evidence obtained as a direct or indirect result of the warrantless search of his cell phone, and (2) whether the district court improperly dismissed the juror without holding an evidentiary hearing. (Dakota County)