MINNESOTA CRIMINAL APPEALS LAWYER
A person convicted of a crime has only one opportunity to appeal. Trials commonly involve disputes about many issues. Successful appeals, in contrast, almost always turn on a few, critical issues. It is essential, therefore, that appellate counsel have the experience and judgment to identify the best possible issues to raise on appeal.
Brad Delapena has represented clients in over 100 criminal appeals in the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. He knows how to evaluate and refine the issues raised by trial counsel. Just as important, by taking a fresh look at the case, Brad can also discover significant issues that trial counsel may have missed. Brad knows how to identify the issues that are most likely to prevail on appeal, and how best to present those issues to the appellate courts. Brad ensures that his client’s rights on appeal are fully protected.
Direct Appeal Victories
Brad handles two different kinds of appeals in the criminal area. First, he directly appeals judgments of conviction on behalf of persons found guilty at trial. Brad has represented clients convicted of first and second-degree murder; attempted first and second-degree murder; all degrees of criminal sexual conduct and assault; burglary and arson; all degrees of controlled substance violations, and many other offenses. He has obtained the outright reversal of convictions for the most serious offenses including murder, attempted murder and major drug crimes. Here are some examples:
State v. Morris (2009):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Constitutional Right to Counsel. Brad obtained reversal of a district court order refusing to appoint counsel to represent Morris during a post-conviction challenge to his misdemeanor conviction. On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Morris, and all persons convicted of misdemeanors, have a right under the Minnesota Constitution to appointed counsel at public expense when challenging a misdemeanor conviction either by direct appeal or a post-conviction proceeding.
State v. Williams (2009):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Jury Instructions. Brad obtained reversal of a conviction for first-degree arson. The Court reversed because the trial court told the jury that they could convict the defendant if they found that an accomplice had started the fire, but never explained to the jury the legal rules governing liability for crimes of another (accomplice liability).
State v. Ancel (2008):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Prejudicial Evidence. Brad obtained reversal of convictions for two counts of first-degree burglary on the ground that the trial court improperly allowed the State to introduce extensive trial testimony that police officers involved in the case (1) knew the defendant “from prior contacts” and (2) had the defendant under surveillance on the night he was alleged to have committed the burglaries.
State v. Miramontes (2008):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Failure to Disclose. Brad obtained reversal of convictions for two counts of first-degree controlled substance crime (sale of methamphetamine). The Court reversed because the State failed to disclose to the defense before trial evidence that an eyewitness had identified as the drug dealer a person other than the defendant.
State v. Traxler (1998):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Drug Testing Standards. Brad obtained reversal of a conviction for first-degree controlled substance crime (sale of methamphetamine) on the ground that the government failed to present sufficient evidence concerning the quantity of methamphetamine the defendant allegedly possessed.
State v. George (1997):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Probable Cause and Consent to Search. Defendant was riding his Harley Davidson through Minnesota to Sturgis when a trooper pulled him over for having more than two headlights. The officer pressured the defendant for consent to search the bike and found a handgun for which the defendant did not have a license. Based on this evidence, the defendant was convicted of illegal possession of a handgun. In the Minnesota Supreme Court, Brad successfully argued that the officer had no objective basis to believe that the Harley’s headlight configuration was unlawful, and that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his motorcycle. Consequently, the Court rule that the district court should have excluded the gun from evidence, and it vacated the defendant’s conviction.
Gilliland v. State (1997):
Minnesota Court of Appeals: Brad obtained reversal of conviction for fifth-degree controlled substance crime (sale of marijuana) on the ground that the defendant’s trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective.
State v. Harris (1994):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Prejudicial Evidence and Prosecutorial Misconduct. Brad obtained reversal of a conviction for first-degree rape-murder on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. This case also established the legal framework in Minnesota for the admissibility of evidence that a government witness has been placed in a witness-protection program.
State v. McCuiston (1994):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Self-Defense. Brad obtained reversal of a second-degree murder conviction on the ground that the trial court used the wrong legal standard for self-defense. This case established the principle that, under Minnesota law, a householder is authorized to use deadly force to prevent another person intending to commit a felony from entering his home.
State v. Post (1994):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Prejudicial Evidence. Brad obtained reversal of conviction for attempted second-degree murder on the ground that the trial court improperly admitted evidence that, when on duty as a private security officer, the defendant was governed by employer regulations concerning the use of a firearm. The Court found that evidence irrelevant and prejudicial since the defendant has acted in self-defense while off duty. This case established the principle that in Minnesota, privately imposed regulations are not relevant to whether a person is authorized by law to use deadly force.
State v. Rachuy (1993):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Sentencing Guidelines. Based upon a close reading of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and the Career Offender Statute, Brad obtained for the defendant a 15-year sentence reduction.
Pretrial State Appeal Victories
The second kind of criminal appeal Brad handles is the defense of pretrial State appeals. In these cases, the district court has issued a ruling favorable to the defendant (e.g., a ruling suppressing evidence or dismissing a charge), and the State has filed a pretrial appeal. Brad’s objective in such cases is to sustain the district court’s (favorable) ruling. Here are some recent cases in which Brad has been successful:
State v. Mertz (2011):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Perjury. Brad persuaded the appellate court that the actual administration of a formal oath is necessary to sustain a perjury prosecution.
State v. Martin (2011):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Probable Cause. Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial order dismissing a nine-count Complaint against the defendant on the ground that the State’s case was “inherently incredible.”
In re C.D.G. (2010):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Adult Certification of Juvenile. Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial order refusing to certify C.D.G. for adult prosecution.
State v. Boman (2009):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Suppression of Evidence. Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s order suppressing a quantity of controlled substance police found in a container near the defendant’s back door because police did not have a search warrant.
State v. Desjarlais (2008):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Suppression of Evidence. Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial ruling that the State would not be allowed to present at the defendant’s trial for first-degree assault, certain evidence allegedly linking the defendant to the offense because the police had obtained that evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Martin (2008):
Minnesota Supreme Court – Reasonable Bail. Brad filed a “friend of the court” brief that helped persuade the Minnesota Supreme Court that the district court improperly set an unusually high bail amount as a means of coercing the defendant—who faced only a minor drug charge—to submit to drug testing during pretrial release. (Had the defendant been able to afford to post bail, the district court could not have ordered drug testing as a condition of pretrial release).
State v. Sundberg (2007):
Minnesota Court of Appeals – Suppression of Evidence. Brad persuaded the appellate court to affirm the district court’s pretrial ruling that the State would not be allowed to present at the defendant’s trial for attempted third-degree burglary and criminal damage to property, evidence that an eyewitness had identified the defendant as the offender. The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling because police had used an unduly suggestive identification procedure that likely caused the witness to mistakenly identify the defendant as the offender.
FREE CONSULTATION
Brad Assists Clients With Criminal and Civil Appeals, and State Tax Appeals.
Contact Us For A Free Consultation
