Source: https://mcaa-mn.org/news/479422/MN-Supreme-Court-December-2019-calendar.htm
Timestamp: 2020-05-29 10:33:11
Document Index: 143242436

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 259', '§ 257', '§ 259', '§ 257', '§ 5', '§ 609', '§ 590']

MN Supreme Court December 2019 calendar - Minnesota County Attorneys Association
MN Supreme Court December 2019 calendar
T.G.G., Appellant vs. H.E.S., Respondent, A.F.K., et al., intervenors, Respondents – Case No. A18-1616: Unless a statutory exception applies, Minn. Stat. § 259.52, subd. 8(1) (2018) bars a putative father who is not married to a child’s mother and who fails to register with the Minnesota Fathers’ Adoption Registry within 30 days after the birth of the child “from bringing or maintaining an action to assert any interest in the child during the pending adoption proceeding concerning the child.” One such statutory exception applies to a putative father who, with the mother of the child, has signed a recognition of parentage (ROP) pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 257.75 (2018) that has not been revoked. See Minn. Stat. §§ 259.49, subd. 1(a)(7); 259.52, subds. 6, 8 (2018). An ROP may not be revoked after “the date of an administrative or judicial hearing relating to the child in which the revoking party is a party to the related action.” Minn. Stat. § 257.75, subd. 2.
On appeal to the supreme court, the issue presented is whether 24 C.F.R. § 5.609(c)(16) excludes, for purposes of calculating a family’s Section 8 household annual income, the parent-allocated portion of the CDCS benefits. (Scott County Community Development Agency.
State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. James Martin Alger, Sr., Appellant – Case No. A18-1000: Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant James Martin Alger, Sr., pleaded guilty to two counts of violating an order for protection (OFP). As part of his factual basis, Alger admitted that he violated the OFP by having contact with his ex-girlfriend and their minor son. He also agreed that he would receive two sentences, which would be served consecutively. The district court imposed sentences that were consistent with the parties’ agreement. On appeal, Alger argued that the imposition of two sentences was unlawful under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2018). The court of appeals affirmed the sentences, relying on the multiple-victim rule.
Nonoral: Thomas J. Fox, Appellant vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent – Case No. A19-1140:In 2013, a jury found appellant Thomas Fox guilty of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree felony murder. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of release. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Fox, 886 N.W.2d 206, 210 (Minn. 2015). In 2016, Fox filed a petition for postconviction relief on multiple grounds. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, and this court affirmed. Fox v. State, 913 N.W.2d 429, 436 (Minn. 2018). In 2019, Fox filed a second petition for postconviction relief asserting that he was denied effective representation by appellate counsel. The district court denied the second petition without a hearing as well, finding it was time-barred under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 4(a)(2) (2018), procedurally barred by State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976), and failed on the merits.