Posts Tagged ‘drug crimes lawyer’

Innocent owner in forfeiture of motor vehicle

Friday, August 23rd, 2019

Innocent owner defense in forfeiture of motor vehicle matter applied correctly

Appellant city appealed the trial court’s order precluding forfeiture of a truck, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that respondent car dealership, the titleholder and registered owner, was an innocent owner under Minn. Stat. §169A.63, subd. 7(d).  Noting that respondent was the title holder and registered owner, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that the trial court correctly applied the innocent owner provision.  Affirmed.

Princeton Auto Ctr. Inc. v. 2010 Chevrolet Silverado, A18-2022, Stearns County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Felon in possession of a firearm

Friday, August 23rd, 2019

Is adjudicated a conviction of a felony crime of violence resulting in lifetime ban on possession of firearms?

In this appeal from a conviction for possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, in violation of Minn. Stat. §624.713, subd. 1(2), defendant argued that because he was adjudicated delinquent, rather than convicted, of a “crime of violence,” the statute did not apply to him and his conviction must be vacated.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that, within the context of the statutory scheme and consistent with the plain language of 624.713, subd. 1(2), prohibiting persons who have been adjudicated delinquent of a “crime of violence” from possessing firearms, the definition of “crime of violence” contained within Minn. Stat. §624.712, subd. 5, unambiguously included juvenile adjudications for the listed offenses.  Affirmed.

Roberts v. State, A19-0389, Hennepin County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Commentary:  This is a very significant case.  The Court held that to be adjudicated delinquent of a crime of violence “unambiguously” comes within the meaning of being convicted of a crime of violence.  While perhaps the Court could so declare, it is certainly not unambiguous.  Indeed, adjudicated is a completely different word than conviction.  Adjudicated applied to children, and conviction applies to adults, and for very good reasons, children are not held to the same standard as an adult.  So, very arguable, a child convicted of a crime of violence should not be declared convicted as an adult, and should not lose their gun rights for life.  This case should be taken to the Minnesota Supreme Court; however, the Court will in all likelihood agree with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  Then, the issue becomes-can this case be taken to the United States Supreme Court, as violative of a constitutional right?  Did the defense counsel handling this case have the intelligence to present and preserve a constitutional issue?  It appears not.  So, that means, this decision, rightly or wrongly, is likely to remain precedent for a good amount of time.

Voluntariness

Thursday, August 22nd, 2019

Motion to withdraw plea to domestic assault

Defendant argued that his guilty plea to domestic assault and fifth degree assault was coerced by trial counsel’s alleged erroneous advice, and, therefore the plea was involuntary.  Noting that defendant’s claim was directly contradicted by the plea agreement and trial counsel’s testimony at the postconviction evidentiary hearing, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the postconviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.  Affirmed.

Shaka v. State, A18-1662, Ramsey County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Sufficiency of the evidence

Wednesday, August 21st, 2019

Criminal sexual conduct

In this direct appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed fifth degree criminal sexual conduct.  The victim testified that when she agreed to let defendant touch a tattoo on her neck, defendant grabbed and cupped her breast without her consent for two to three seconds.  Noting that defendant’s hypothesis that he touched her breast by accident was not reasonable, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the circumstances proved were inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except guilt.  Affirmed.

State v. Yehuda, A18-1336, Blue Earth County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Commentary:  With all due respect, this case really seems like overkill.

Fourth Amendment search warrant for body cavity

Tuesday, August 20th, 2019

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that search of body cavity not reasonable under Fourth Amendment

This case requires a determination as to whether a body cavity search performed by forcing the defendant to be strapped down and sedated and to undergo an invasive anoscopy against his will as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that (1) when determining whether a search conducted within a person’s body is reasonable, a court considers the extent to which the procedure may threaten the safety or health of the person, the extent of the intrusion upon the person’s dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity, and the community’s interest in fairly and accurate determining the guilty or innocence of the individual; and (2) the extreme and substantial intrusion of defendant’s dignitary rights by a coerced anoscopy and the risks that the procedure posed to defendant’s health and safety outweigh the community interest in retrieving potential evidence that defendant possessed a controlled substance, particularly where no exigent circumstances existed.

State v. Brown, A17-0870, Minnesota Supreme Court (2019).

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson successfully averts hit and run charges being brought against her client

Sunday, August 18th, 2019

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson successfully avoids hit and run charges from being brought against her client

Ms. Torgerson’s client was a young female attending a university in St. Paul.  She also planned on attending graduate school.  Oftentimes, working to protect a client’s future is important.  There was an investigation into an automobile accident potentially involving Ms. Torgerson’s client, as to whether Ms. Torgerson’s client had been involved in an auto accident and left the scene without leaving the required name, address, automobile insurance information, etc.  In this type of circumstance, it is often a good idea to retain a lawyer on a “pre-charge” basis, before any charges are brought.  This type of crime is colloquially called a hit and run, or leaving the scene of an accident.  After having invoked her client’s constitutional Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and to counsel, corresponding with the City Attorney’s Office, and handling other insurance related issues, no charges were ever brought against Ms. Torgerson’s client.  Sometimes it is a good idea to retain counsel before making any statements to the police, inasmuch as people have rights to remain silent and to counsel.  So doing may result in criminal charges never being brought, and protecting your future.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Criminal Sexual Conduct Lawyer Lynne Torgerson successfully avoids criminal sexual conduct charges being brought against her client

Sunday, August 18th, 2019

Criminal Sexual Conduct Attorney Lynne Torgerson successfully avoids criminal sexual conduct charges from being brought against her client

Ms. Torgerson’s client was a 50 something, married, father of four (4) children, teenagers and in their 20s.  A highly educated man, he was a health care provider for approximately ten (10) years.  One of his daughters had a history of mental illness, and hallucinations.  As an adult, said daughter made an allegation of criminal sexual conduct against her father, Ms. Torgerson’s client.  There may not be more serious charges that can be brought against a person.  A conviction of criminal sexual conduct can result in over a decade in prison, loss of profession, predatory offender registration from 10 years to life, DNA sample, etc.  Ms. Torgerson was retained to represent the father on a pre-formal charge basis.  Ms. Torgerson corresponded with the police department, and several Letters of Reference were submitted on behalf of the father.  No charges were ever brought any Ms. Torgerson’s client.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Postconviction relief

Saturday, August 17th, 2019

Knaffla Bar

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder as an accomplice.  On direct appeal, her conviction was affirmed.  Defendant then sought postconviction relief, asserting several claims of error.  The trial court denied her petition without a hearing.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it held that defendant’s claims were procedurally barred; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel’s claim on the merits.  Affirmed.

Onyelobi v. State, A19-0003, Hennepin County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Expungement Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins assault expungement in Goodhue County

Monday, August 12th, 2019

Minnesota Expungement Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins expungement of assault conviction in Goodhue County

Minnesota Expungement Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won expungement of an assault conviction out of the County of Goodhue, State of Minnesota.  Initially, Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with gross misdemeanor 911 interference, and domestic assault.  In the intervening years, Ms. Torgerson’s client had gotten married, raised 3 children, maintained a successful 40 year career, and had become a pilot and minister.  He/she had also not incurred a criminal conviction for 14 years.  Ms. Torgerson’s client wished to obtain an expungement primarily so that he/she could regain his/her Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  A collateral consequence of an expungement in a state court is that under federal law, the federal law prohibition on possession of firearms is supposed to be removed.  At this time, the FBI/ATF/NICS seem to be resistant to obeying the law; we shall see.  The Goodhue County Attorney’s Office did not oppose the request for expungement.  The Goodhue County District Court concluded that Ms. Torgerson’s client had established by clear and convincing evidence that his interest in expungement was commensurate to the disadvantage to the State in having the records expunged and granted the extraordinary remedy of expungement.  Well done client and Ms. Torgerson.

Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case out of Chisago County

Monday, August 12th, 2019

Second Amendment Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins gun rights restoration case out of Chisago County

Minnesota Second Amendment Lawyer Lynne Torgerson has won a gun rights restoration case out of Chisago County, State of Minnesota.  When Petitioner, Ms. Torgerson’s client was younger, he/she had a not insignificant number of cases.  Petitioner had an issue with methamphetamine, resulting drug related conviction(s) and a consequent prison sentence.  Since that case, 12 years elapsed, wherein Petitioner remained law abiding.  He also got married, obtained a GED, and completed community college.  He obtained gainful employment, wherein it would be helpful if he could possess firearms, as his employer turned down new business because Petitioner could not possess firearms.  Petitioner no longer used illegal drugs.  He had completed drug treatment, which was helpful.  As a child, Petitioner had positive experiences with firearms.  Finding good cause, The Honorable Robert Rancourt granted Petitioner’s petition to restore his Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.  Well done client, and, Ms. Torgerson.


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.