EN BANC CALENDAR
Before the Minnesota Supreme Court
March 2016
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office
Monday, February 29, 2016
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 – Case No. A14-1587: Appellant United South Central Schools has a policy that prohibits students from possessing a weapon when in a school location. In April 2014, a pocket knife was found in the locker of respondent-student A.D., then a junior at the school. The student explained the knife was unintentionally left in the bag the student brought to school on the day of a school-wide locker search. Following a hearing before the School Board, the student was expelled after the Board concluded the student’s conduct was a willful violation of the school’s policy and willful conduct that endangered others. The School Board rejected the student’s explanation for unintentionally bringing the knife to school and for failing to voluntarily turn over the knife to the school when the student recalled it was left in the bag. The expulsion was upheld on appeal to the Commissioner of Education.
The student appealed to the court of appeals, asserting that the expulsion violated the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 121A.40-.56 (2014) because the School Board’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and included errors of law. The court of appeals reversed, concluding substantial evidence did not support the School Board’s finding of a willful violation of the school’s policy given that the student did not recall the knife was in the bag and therefore unintentionally brought the knife to school. The court also found the student did not willfully violate the school’s policy requiring voluntary disclosure of weapons unintentionally brought to school because the student was not aware of the version of the policy the school relied on, and the school prevented the student from complying with the voluntary-disclosure policy. The court also concluded the student’s conduct did not willfully endanger others.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether a “willful violation of any reasonable school board policy” as used in Minnesota Statutes section 121A.45, subdivision 2(a), requires a finding that a student is aware of the policy and makes a deliberate, conscious, and intentional choice to violate the policy, in order to expel the student; (2) whether “willful conduct that endangers the pupil or other pupils” as used in Minnesota Statutes section 121A.45, subdivision 2(c), requires a finding of probable harm or loss in order to expel a student; and (3) whether a school board must make explicit findings in a student expulsion decision on the credibility of witness testimony in order to render a decision with sufficient detail for deferential review. (Minnesota Department of Education)
Ryedelle Reginald Loving, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A15-1111: Following a jury trial, appellant Ryedelle Loving was convicted of several offenses, including first-degree premeditated murder. Appellant did not file a direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was summarily denied.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support appellant’s convictions; (2) whether the district court erred in its jury instruction on the elements of drive by shooting; (3) whether the district court erred in its in camera review of the grand jury proceedings; and (4) whether the trial court violated appellant’s right to present a defense when it limited his questioning about the dangerous nature of the place where the shooting occurred. (Hennepin County)
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
Francisco Herrera Sanchez, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-1679: Appellant Francisco Herrera Sanchez pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct. After federal authorities initiated deportation proceedings against him, Sanchez, who is a Mexican national, moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that he would not have pleaded guilty if his attorney had advised him, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), that deportation was a certainty, not a mere possibility. The district court denied relief on two grounds. First, it concluded that the immigration consequences of Sanchez’s guilty plea were not “truly clear” under federal immigration law, such that defense counsel’s duty was limited to advising Sanchez of the risk of deportation. Second, the court found that even if deportation was a certainty, Sanchez’s attorney had advised Sanchez of this. The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issue is presented: whether a criminal defense attorney’s obligation to determine the immigration consequences of a client’s conviction extends only to “reading the text of the [immigration] statute,” or whether it also encompasses research into “settled case law.” (Rice County)
Nonoral: State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Forrest Grant Noggle, Appellant – Case No. A15-0466: Appellant Forrest Noggle pleaded guilty to attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct and was placed on probation. The district court subsequently revoked appellant’s probation and imposed an 18-month executed prison sentence. Without objection, the court also imposed a 10-year conditional release, citing Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 6 (2014). Appellant appealed, arguing the district court erred when it imposed the conditional release because Minn. Stat. § 609.17 (2014) (the attempt statute) is not one of the five enumerated statutes in section 609.3455, subdivision 6. The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issue is presented: whether the conditional-release provision of Minn. Stat. § 609.3455, subd. 6, applies when a defendant is convicted of attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct. (Dodge County)
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michael John Riehm, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 296570 – Case No. A13-1786: In a series of disciplinary petitions, the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility alleged that respondent Michael Riehm committed professional misconduct by knowingly assisting an associate at another law firm in keeping referral fees Riehm paid the associate from his law firm; failing to adequately disclose to clients that he would be sharing fees with lawyers in another firm; and being convicted of first-degree assault. The matter was referred to a referee.
On the first day of the evidentiary hearing, the parties informed the referee they had reached an agreement, the terms of which included that the parties would recommend to the supreme court that Riehm be suspended for 5 years; the parties would ask the referee to approve their agreement; and Riehm would “admit[] without equivocation the allegations in the” disciplinary petitions. During questioning from the Director, Riehm stated that he admitted all of the allegations in the disciplinary petitions. The referee agreed to approve the recommended disposition and asked the Director to put together a document regarding the parties’ agreement. The Director sent Riehm’s counsel a copy of a stipulation and recommendation for discipline. Riehm informed the Director that he would not sign the stipulation unless it had a term stating the matter would proceed to a hearing before the referee if the supreme court did not accept the stipulated sanction of a 5-year suspension.
The Director brought a motion to enforce the settlement agreement before the referee. The referee granted the Director’s motion, confirmed the parties’ agreement as read into the record during the hearing, and recommended that the supreme court accept the parties’ recommended discipline of a 5-year suspension.
The issues now before the supreme court include the following: (1) whether as a term of the parties’ settlement agreement, Riehm unconditionally admitted the allegations of misconduct alleged in the disciplinary petitions; (2) whether a settlement agreement in an attorney discipline case may include a term stating that the attorney’s admissions are conditional and that the case will be referred to a referee if the supreme court does not impose the discipline recommended by the parties; and (3) what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of this matter.
Nonoral: Randy Leeroyal Swaney, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A15-1313: Following a jury trial, appellant Randy Swaney was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief alleging a number of claims, including a claim that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to obtain the prison phone records of a State witness, he did not personally interview any witnesses before trial, and he lacked prior experience. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the postconviction court denied appellant’s petition.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issue is presented: whether the postconviction court erred when it denied appellant’s petition for postconviction relief. (Rock County)
Monday, March 7, 2016
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Diamond Lee Jamal Griffin, Appellant – Case No. A15-0345: A Hennepin County grand jury indicted appellant Diamond Griffin on several charges, including first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder. Appellant pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. Over his objection, the district court admitted evidence related to appellant’s commission of a January 2008 attempted aggravated robbery as Spreigl evidence. When the prosecutor asked appellant’s ex-girlfriend if she remembered telling her boss that she thought her boyfriend killed somebody, appellant made a motion for a mistrial, which was denied. The jury found petitioner guilty of the first-degree and second-degree murder charges.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether the district court committed reversible error by admitting the Spreigl evidence; (2) whether the court abused its discretion when it denied appellant’s motion for a mistrial; and (3) whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions. (Hennepin County)
Keith Melillo, Respondent vs. Terry Arden Heitland, Appellant – Case No. A15-0083: Respondent Keith Melillo and appellant Terry Heitland were involved in an automobile accident on August 1, 2008. Melillo sought to commence a personal injury action by sending the summons and complaint to Heitland at his residence by certified mail, return receipt requested. Melillo’s attorney later received a return-receipt post card, which contained Heitland’s signature and indicated that Heitland had received delivery of the envelope on June 9, 2014. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that Melillo had not properly served Heitland with the summons and complaint before the 6-year statute of limitations expired. The court of appeals reversed and remanded.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issue is presented: whether personal service pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03 may be effectuated by certified mail, return receipt requested, for an in-state resident. (Scott County)
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Brian George Fitch, Appellant – Case No. A15-0769: A multicounty grand jury indicted appellant Brian Fitch with several offenses, including first-degree intentional murder of a peace officer (an offense that occurred in Dakota County) and three counts of attempted first-degree murder of a peace officer (offenses that occurred in Ramsey County). Before trial, appellant moved to dismiss the indictment, or at least sever the Ramsey County case for a separate trial in Ramsey County. He argued that Minn. Stat. § 628.41 (2014), which allows a multicounty grand jury and a single trial venue for multicounty offenses, violates his right under the Minnesota Constitution to a trial in the county where the charged offenses occurred. The district court denied appellant’s motion. Following a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the charged offenses.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issues are presented: (1) whether section 628.41 violates appellant’s right under the Minnesota Constitution to a trial in the county where the charged offenses occurred; and (2) whether the district court erred by refusing to sever the Dakota County charges from the Ramsey County charges. (Dakota County)
Lane Francis Weitzel, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A14-1186: Appellant Lane Weitzel pleaded guilty to the offense of failure to register as a predatory offender and was placed on probation. He did not file a direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his guilty plea was invalid because it lacked an adequate factual basis. The State denied all the allegations in the petition, but did not expressly invoke the time bar set forth in Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(c) (2014), which provides that, “[a]ny petition invoking an exception provided in paragraph (b) must be filed within two years of the date the claim arises.” The postconviction court denied appellant’s petition as untimely under section 590.01, subdivision 4(c). The court of appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the supreme court, the following issue is presented: whether a postconviction court may deny a petition on the ground that it is untimely under section 590.01, subdivision 4(c), if the State failed to raise the time bar in its answer. (Anoka County)
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Robert D. Stoneburner, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0105909 – Case No. A15-0441: An attorney discipline case that presents the question of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based on the facts of the matter.
Nonoral: Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – A15-1597: Following a jury trial, appellant Joel Munt was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court imposed a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, which alleged three claims. First, appellant claimed the district court erred in its jury instructions. Second, he claimed the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Finally, he claimed the Equal Protection Clause requires that the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (prohibiting mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release for juveniles), be applied to “all people.” The postconviction court summarily denied appellant’s petition, concluding it was time barred.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented include: (1) whether appellant’s limited access to the prison law library prevented him from filing a timely petition; (2) whether the district court erred in its jury instructions; (3) whether the State presented insufficient evidence; and (4) whether the Equal Protection Clause requires that the rule announced in Miller be applied to all people. (Blue Earth County)