Ricky James Bedell, petitioner, Appellant, vs. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections, Respondent.
Rice County District Court, Hon. Judge Christine Long.
A prison inmate's Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination is violated when he is required, as a condition of participation in a prison-based chemical-dependency-treatment program, to discuss a conviction offense that is on appeal.
Reversed and remanded. Chief Judge Edward J. Cleary.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Robert John Meyers, Appellant.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. Robert M. Small.
Departure from a presumptive sentence is properly based on the aggravating factor articulated in Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D.2.b.(3) (2010) when the underlying conviction involves injury, even if injury is an essential element of the conviction. The category of offenses subject to an upward departure under this factor includes those current convictions that involve harm or criminal sexual conduct; the basis for departure is that the offender has a prior conviction of an offense involving harm or criminal sexual conduct.
Affirmed. Judge Peter M. Reyes Jr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Corey Joel Eichers, Appellant.
Court of Appeals.
1. Removing a package from an airport mailroom conveyor belt and placing it on the floor to be sniffed by a narcotics-detection dog is not a seizure under either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution because the movement of the package does not constitute meaningful interference with the addressee’s possessory interests in the package.
2. No reasonable expectation of privacy is violated when an officer conducts a minimally intrusive dog sniff of a package in an airport mailroom, and thus the dog sniff in this case was not a search for purposes of either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution.
3. Because neither a search nor a seizure occurred, there was no violation of either the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution, regardless of whether the officer’s actions were reasonably justified, and the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress evidence.
Affirmed. Justice G. Barry Anderson.
Took no part, Justice Alan C. Page.
Frank Duane Lussier, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent.
1. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s challenge to his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing.
2. The postconviction court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed. Justice David R. Stras.
Took no part, Justice Wilhelmina M. Wright.
Wed, September 19, 2018 @ 6:01 PM
Your Email/URL (Optional):
Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.
©2018 Ascheman Law | 612-217-0077. Website Design by Lift Creative.