In this appeal from his convictions of pattern of harassing conduct, harassment, multiple violations of a harassment restraining order, and falsely reporting a crime, appellant challenges his convictions and sentence. We affirm... FACTS... Appellant Thomas O'Meara and R.O. were married in 1999. They separated in September 2003, and O'Meara moved out of the home they had shared. On March 1, 2006, R.O. obtained a harassment restraining order that prohibited O'Meara from harassing R.O. or having...  

Appellant challenges the district court's acceptance of his guilty pleas to four counts of possession and sale of drugs, arguing that the district court accepted two of his pleas without adequate factual bases and therefore that the entire plea hearing was illegitimate. Because the district court accepted appellant's guilty pleas to two counts of aiding and abetting possession and sale of drugs, despite appellant's sworn testimony that his crimes of possession and sale were completely his doing...  

In this direct appeal from his conviction of first-degree controlled-substance crime, appellant argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the district court erred in denying his motion to preclude any reference to firearms found in his home during the execution of a search warrant. We affirm... FACTS... On October 2, 2006, investigators with the Brown/Lyon/Redwood County Drug Task Force executed a search warrant for appellant Glenn Leo Mangen's farm home. In the kitchen, an investigator...  

This is an appeal from judgment entered against appellant following a jury trial on claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellant argues... ... ... that the district court erred by (1) granting judgment as a matter of law on liability with respect to the defamation claim when there were factual issues as to the authorship and truth of the anonymous-e-mail communications; (2) allowing respondents to amend their complaint at trial to allege the existence of...  

Following her conviction of conspiracy to commit a first-degree controlled substance crime, appellant Jamie A. Olmscheid challenges the denial of her pretrial motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of her car. Appellant argues that her consent to the search was involuntary and that the evidence was the product of an illegal seizure. We affirm... DECISION... When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts to determine, as a matter...  

Appellant Jeffrey Alan Rosebush challenges his convictions for fifth-degree controlled substance offense, Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1) (2006), driving after revocation, Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 2 (2006), and driving without insurance, Minn. Stat. § 169.797, subd. 3 (2006). Appellant claims that: (1) he was in custody when a state trooper discovered drugs in his vehicle, and any statements he made after that time should have been suppressed because he was not given a...  

Relator Teisha Long challenges the unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) decision that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she engaged in employment misconduct. Relator argues that (1) the ULJ's factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) the ULJ erred in failing to explain his credibility determinations; and (3) the ULJ abused his discretion by denying relator an additional evidentiary hearing. We affirm... DECISION... When an employer discharges an...  

Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged for misconduct after she scheduled a hair appointment with a salon client at relator's home. Relator argues that (1) the receptionist, not relator, suggested this as a way to accommodate the client's busy schedule; and (2) the ULJ did not contact relator's witness. We affirm. FACTS... Respondent Cahill Salon & Tan, Inc., employed relator...  

In this case involving a dispute over whether there was insurance coverage on appellant's home after it was damaged in a fire, appellant challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of each respondent, arguing that it erred because genuine issues of material fact exist. Because we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning the claim against Dean Burrington Agency, Inc., we affirm in part. But, because there are genuine issues of material fact...  

Appellant Richard A. Martin challenges his conviction for third-degree assault, Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2004), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict. Appellant also filed a pro se supplemental brief, generally alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel... Because the record evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict and does not support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm... DECISION... Sufficiency of the Evidence......  

On appeal from his sentencing order, appellant argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him to consecutive sentences for a gross misdemeanor offense and a felony offense; that it abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty without an evidentiary hearing; and that it abused its discretion when it denied his request to withdraw his pleas of guilty because the court did not honor the plea agreement. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we affirm......  

In this certiorari appeal, relator Lucas Roggeman challenges an unemployment law judge's determination that he was discharged from Shaky Town Express for employment misconduct. Roggeman argues that the actual reason his employer discharged him was to retaliate for his lawsuit against Shaky Town over a paycheck allegedly owed to him. Roggeman also contends that his hearing was unfair and that he was unfairly denied a new evidentiary hearing based on new evidence. We affirm... FACTS... Lucas...  

Appellant Darron I. Shelton challenges his conviction and sentence for aiding and abetting first-degree robbery. Because the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by asking appellant on cross-examination if the victim's account of the robbery was true or by asking a police witness how he learned the identity of appellant's girlfriend; because the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of appellant's prior conviction or by refusing to replay the tape of the victim's 911...  

In January 2006, Michael Shepersky pleaded guilty to four offenses arising from four separate incidents occurring in St. Louis County and Lake County. In February 2007, Shepersky filed a petition for postconviction relief in which he sought to withdraw his guilty plea. The district court denied the postconviction petition. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm... FACTS... At the time of his guilty plea, Shepersky was charged with multiple...  

This appeal arises from an employee's decision to leave his employment and move out of state because he could not afford to pay rent with reduced work hours. Antoine Daniels appeals from an unemployment law judge's decision that he was not qualified to receive unemployment benefits because he did not quit his job with Cover All Services for good reason caused by his employer. Daniels argues that the ULJ's decision was in error because the ULJ failed to find that when Cover All refused to rent...  

Appellant Superior Lake Street Properties, LLC, purchaser of subject property pursuant to a right-of-first-refusal agreement, challenges the district court's determination that (1) respondent-seller Wayzata Bay Center, LLC was entitled to receive $15.25... ... ... million pursuant to the right-of-first-refusal contract and (2) respondent was not unjustly enriched. We affirm... DECISION... I... The predecessors-in-interest to appellant and respondent entered into a right-of-first-refusal...  

Relator DRJ Inc., d/b/a Diva's Overtime Lounge (Diva's), challenges the revocation of its licenses by respondent City of St. Paul (the city). Because evidence supports the city's findings of fact and conclusions of law and because the revocation was not arbitrary or capricious, we affirm... FACTS... In June 2005, the bar at 1141 Rice Street in St. Paul began operating as Diva's. Maintaining video surveillance cameras that operated during business hours was among the conditions imposed when...  

Appellant non-union contractor challenges the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of respondent union. The district court determined that appellant's claims are preempted by federal labor law. Because appellant's complaint is based primarily on alleged violations of federal and state prevailing wage statutes, the interpretation of which does not require invoking federal labor law, federal preemption does not apply to preclude the state court's jurisdiction over this...  

Relator challenges the decision by the unemployment-law judge that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she quit without good reason caused by the employer, arguing that she had good reason because (1) the temporary-employment definition of quit does not apply because she had not signed a current version of the "Requesting a New Assignment upon Completion of an Assignment" form; (2) the findings of facts are not supported by the evidence; (3) she did not...  

In 2005, Alberto Lopez Ramirez pleaded guilty to aiding the sale of methamphetamine. The district court imposed an 86-month prison sentence but stayed execution of the sentence and placed Ramirez on probation for a period not to exceed 10 years. In 2007, the district court revoked Ramirez's probation and executed the sentence because Ramirez failed to stay in contact with his probation officer and re-entered the United States illegally after visiting family members in Mexico. We conclude that...