EN BANC CALENDAR

 

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

 

February 2006

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

 

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

 

 

Monday, January 30, 2006, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom,

State Capitol

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Thanh Quan Tran, a.k.a Tony Tran, Appellant – Case No. A05-26:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree premeditated and second-degree murder, appellant Thanh Quan Tran presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of the victim’s life insurance; and (2) whether the district court erred in denying appellant the right to cross-examine witnesses about the gang affiliation of an initial suspect in the murder.  (On appeal from Dakota County District Court.)

 

            State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Margaret Thompson, Respondent - Case No. A04-1808:  On appeal from respondent’s sentencing for theft by swindle, appellant State of Minnesota presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether, under Blakely v. Washington (decided after respondent’s guilty plea but before respondent’s sentencing) and State v. Shattuck, an upward durational departure in sentence may be based on the defendant’s admissions made during the course of her guilty plea; and (2) what constitutes a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to a jury trial on sentencing factors.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, January 31, 2006, Supreme Court Courtroom,

State Capitol

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Stephanie Dawn Losh, Appellant – Case No. A04-1208:  Appellant Stephanie Dawn Losh pleaded guilty to kidnapping.  Execution of her sentence was stayed and she was placed on probation.  After appellant was found to have violated the terms of her probation, the district court executed her original prison sentence, an upward durational departure from the presumptive sentence.  At issue are:  (1) whether Blakely v. Washington, decided after appellant appealed from the execution of her sentence, applies; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by sentencing appellant to a term greater than that provided by Minnesota sentencing guidelines.  (On appeal from Cass County District Court.)

 

            State of Minnesota, Appellant vs. Randy Leroy Schmidt, Respondent – Case No. A05-218:  Appellant State of Minnesota appeals from the dismissal of charges against respondent Randy Leroy Schmidt of felony driving while intoxicated (DWI).  At issue is whether the right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution permits an enhanced DWI charge based on prior incidents of impaired driving from other states in which the defendant does not have the right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to blood alcohol testing.  (On appeal from Faribault County District Court.)

 

Wednesday, February 1, 2006, Supreme Court Courtroom,

State Capitol

            McWilliams & Associates, Inc., d/b/a Top Value Homes, Respondent, vs. Tappe Construction; Panelcraft of Minnesota, Inc. and Jeffrey Johnson, Individually and in his capacity as Corporate Officer of Panelcraft of Minnesota, Inc.; and Windsor Window Company, Appellants – Case No. A04-1251:  Appellants Tappe Construction, Panelcraft of Minnesota, Inc., Jeffrey Johnson, and Windsor Window Company appeal from the court of appeals opinion reinstating respondent McWilliams & Associates, Inc.’s claims against them for contribution and indemnity in connection with claims of construction defects in a home substantially completed in 1993.  The issue on appeal is whether the ten-year statute of repose for claims of construction defects also bars third-party claims for contribution and indemnity brought more than ten years after substantial completion.  (On appeal from Dakota County District Court.)

 

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Dennis R. Letourneau, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 62443 – Case No. A05-755:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.

 

            NONORAL:  Tyrone James White, petitioner, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A05-1169:  On appeal from his conviction for first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, pro se appellant Tyrone James White presents the following issues for review:  (1) whether appellant’s constitutional rights were violated by the procedure used to select the grand jury that indicted him; (2) whether appellant’s constitutional rights were violated when the district court communicated privately with a juror during voir dire; (3) whether appellant’s constitutional rights were violated because one of the jurors was acquainted with the prosecutor and with the victim’s roommate; (4) whether appellant’s constitutional rights were violated by the introduction of uncorroborated accomplice testimony; and (5) whether appellant received effective assistance of counsel.  (On appeal from St. Louis County District Court.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thursday, February 2, 2006, 9:00 a.m., Supreme Court Courtroom,

State Capitol

            State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Kefa Apiemi Kebaso, Appellant – Case No. A04-1239:  Appellant Kefa Apiemi Kebaso was convicted of domestic assault, interference with an emergency call, and disorderly conduct, and sentenced to 365 days’ imprisonment, a sentence which triggers appellant’s deportation.  On appeal, the issue is whether, in sentencing, the district court may properly consider the effects of the sentence imposed on the defendant’s immigration status.  (On appeal from Hennepin County District Court.)

 

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against William C. Pugh, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 195261 – Case No. C7-97-1350:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.

 

            In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David L. McCormick, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 259500 – Case No. A05-1270:  An attorney discipline matter that presents the issue of what discipline, if any, is appropriate based upon the facts of the matter.