Posts Tagged ‘criminal defense attorney’

Prior bad acts

Friday, January 18th, 2019

Sentencing enhancement

Where a defendant who was convicted on counts related to a conspiracy to distribute a human growth hormone, challenged the admission of a similar 1998 conviction, the judgment is affirmed because the admission was not an abuse of discretion because it was used to show intent and knowledge and was supported by the evidence, and the District Court did not err in applying the sophisticated means enhancement based on the defendant’s repetitive and coordinated conduct, use of specialized medical knowledge, mass online marketing and misleading email addersses and packaging.  Judgment is affirmed.

United State v. Patino, 17-3199, appealed from the Eastern District of Missouri, Gruender, J.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.

Theft of entrusted funds

Friday, January 18th, 2019

Exculpatory evidence; victim’s destruction of records

Defendant was convicted of various offenses related to her theft of funds from a medical practice for which defendant served as bookkeeper.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by excluding exculpatory evidence in the form of the practice’s destruction of its financial records.

Where defendant lacked evidence proving the existence of funds not shown in bank account records or evidence for motive for destruction, the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the records’ destruction because the missing nature of the documents had limited probative value.  Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Espejo, 17-3562, appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, Grasz, J.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.

Supervised release

Thursday, January 17th, 2019

Special condition; admission

Where a defendant argued that the trial court erred in accepting his admission to violating a special condition of supervised release, the judgment is affirmed because the admission was knowing and voluntary, and the defendant affirmatively waived his challenged to the reasonableness of his sentence.  Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Elbert, 17-3014, appealed from the Western District of Missouri, per curiam.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.

Receiving child pornography

Tuesday, January 15th, 2019

Sentencing

Defendant was initially sentenced to 240 months incarceration for knowingly receiving child pornography, which was well below his advisory guidelines range.  Defendant’s sentence was vacated on appeal after he successfully challenged the five level enhancement to this offense level.  On remand, the trial court imposed the same 240 month sentence, now at the middle of defendant’s new guidelines range.

Where the District Court based its sentencing on application of the statutory sentencing factors and sentenced within the guidelines range, it did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence by issuing the same sentence on remand.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Mayokok, 17-2904, appealed from the District of Minnesota, per curiam.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.

Seizure

Tuesday, January 15th, 2019

Reasonable, articulable suspicion

Defendant challenged his conviction of 5th degree possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because police officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain him and his luggage at the airport, and to conduct a dog sniff of his luggage.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s behavior consistent with a drug courier profile, criminal history, and suspicious behavior established reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in drug related criminal activity, justifying his seizure as he deplaned.  Affirmed.

State v. Unsworth, A17-1959, Hennepin County.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.

Sufficiency of the evidence in drug charge

Monday, January 14th, 2019

Controlled substance crime

A jury found defendant guilty of multiple drug related offenses.  He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentences.  He did not challenge the evidence that he possessed the briefcase that contained methamphetamine; rather, he contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he knew that the briefcase contained a controlled substance.  Noting that defendant had recently used his tablet computer to search the internet for ways to evade law enforcement surveillance and for information related to methamphetamine, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance.  However, the trial court erred by imposing two sentences for a single behavioral incident.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State v. Blanchard, A17-1172, Polk County.

Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.

Minnesota Expungement Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins expungement of hit and run case

Monday, January 14th, 2019

Leaving scene of accident conviction expungement

Expungement attorney Lynne Torgerson won an expungement of a hit and run case, also called leaving the scene of an accident.  This case was out of the City of Linwood, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota.  The case was from 1992.  The Anoka County Attorney’s Office did not oppose the expungement.  Ms. Torgerson and her client simply walked in the courtroom, the case was called, the County Attorney did not oppose, and the judge granted the expungement.  Quick and easy wins are always fun!

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration

Sunday, January 6th, 2019

Gun rights lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration out of Watonwan County, State of Minnesota

Gun rights restoration lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won another petition to restore rights to possess firearms.  This time it was out of Watonwan County, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had two old felonies from 1996 and 2005, 22 and 13 years old respectively.  Having established good cause for restoration, the judge granted same.

Lynne Torgerson wins expungement of theft case

Sunday, January 6th, 2019

Expungement of theft case out of Minnetonka granted

Expungement Lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won another expungement case.  This case involved a theft of a telephone from an employer who was a telephone company.  It occurred in the late 1990s and it was continued for dismissal.  Where a case is continued for dismissal and a person successfully completes same, later, if said person seeks an expungement, the law provides that he is presumptively entitled to an expungement, unless the State can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the State needs the records.  So, where the original case was resolved in a defendant’s favor, it is much easier to obtain an expungement, because, under the law, the expungement should be granted unless the State can prove a need for the records.  That is unlikely.  Herein, the petition for expungement was fortunately, granted.  Kudos to Ms. Torgerson and her client!

Lynne Torgerson wins expungement of 2nd degree DWI aka DUI

Monday, December 31st, 2018

Expungement Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins expungement of 2nd degree DWI out of Washington County, State of Minnesota

Expungement Attorney Lynne Torgerson has won an expungement of a 2nd degree DWI.  The case was out of the County of Washington, State of Minnesota.  The date of offense was from 2003.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had remaining law abiding for approximately fifteen (15) years, and, needed expungement of various cases for employment advancement.  The court, The Honorable Richard C. Ilkka presiding, granted her client’s request.


DISCLAIMER: Throughout this website, there are statements on various laws. Please note that this is not legal advice, and no reliance should be taken thereon, and an attorney client relationship is not established hereby. Further, please note that these legal statements may not currently be up to date, because the laws can change daily, and this website does not. Thus, you will always need to actually retain a lawyer to establish an attorney client relationship, to rely upon any advice, and to obtain up-to-date legal research. Thank you.