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 handled 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 clients right’s on appeal are fully protected.

CRIMINAL APPEAL VICTORIES

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. Harris:
Reversal of conviction for first-degree rape-murder on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct. This case 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:
Reversal of 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:
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. This case established the principle that in Minnesota, such privately imposed regulations are not relevant to whether a person is authorized by law to use deadly force.

State v. Traxler:
Reversal of 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 allegedly possessed.

Gilliland v. State:
Reversal of conviction for fifth-degree controlled substance crime (sale of marijuana) on the ground that defendant’s trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective.

Back To Top