Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Heinl

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

September 3, 2013

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Brandon Carl Heinl, Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-11-6477

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Special Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Chutich, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.

KIRK, Judge

On appeal from his conviction of multiple counts of theft of a motor vehicle, appellant argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions, and (2) the district court abused its discretion by sentencing appellant despite a date discrepancy in the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI). We affirm.

FACTS

On August 17, 2011, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Brandon Carl Heinl with six counts of theft of a motor vehicle. The state later amended the complaint to add two additional counts of theft of a motor vehicle. Of the eight counts, the complaint alleged five counts in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(17) (2010), and three counts in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1) (2010). The complaint alleged that between March 15 and May 6, 2011, appellant stole five vehicles and sold them for scrap to Metro Metals, a scrap-metal processor.

The district court held a jury trial in April 2012. Following the trial, the jury found appellant guilty of six counts of theft of a motor vehicle relating to the thefts of three of the vehicles: a 2001 Chevrolet Lumina, a 1992 Chrysler LeBaron, and a 1991 Chevrolet Astro. The jury found appellant not guilty of two counts of theft of a motor vehicle regarding two other vehicles.

At trial, the owner of the 2001 Chevrolet Lumina, R.A.O., testified that she parked her vehicle on the street in front of her house on March 20, 2011, and when she woke up the next morning, her vehicle was gone. R.A.O. reported the vehicle stolen to police on March 21. R.A.O. testified that she did not know appellant and did not give him permission to take her vehicle or to sell it for scrap. She testified that she still had the vehicle's title and keys. The manager of Metro Metals, B.G., testified that appellant brought the 2001 Chevrolet Lumina to Metro Metals on March 21. Appellant signed paperwork stating that he had the right to possess the vehicle and sell it for scrap. Metro Metals paid appellant $348.50 for the vehicle. B.G. testified that Metro Metals had a written ticket showing that appellant brought the vehicle to Metro Metals, a photograph of a tow truck bringing the vehicle to Metro Metals, and a photograph of appellant collecting money for the vehicle. The district court received the records into evidence.

The owner of the 1992 Chrysler LeBaron, D.S., testified that he noticed that his vehicle, which had been parked in his backyard, was missing on April 21, 2011. D.S. testified that he did not know appellant and had not given appellant permission to take his vehicle or sell it for scrap. B.G. testified that appellant delivered the 1992 Chrysler LeBaron to Metro Metals on April 20. Appellant signed paperwork stating that he had the right to possess the vehicle and sell it for scrap, and Metro Metals paid him $510 for the vehicle and another vehicle that is not the subject of this matter. B.G. testified that Metro Metals completed a written ticket stating that appellant brought the vehicle to Metro Metals and took photographs of the vehicle's delivery and of appellant collecting payment for the vehicle. The district court received the records into evidence.

The owner of the 1991 Chevrolet Astro, G.C.M., testified that he parked his vehicle in the parking lot of a market in December 2010 because it had a flat tire. G.C.M. testified that he passed by his vehicle every day on his way to work. G.C.M. testified that when he went to fix the vehicle's tire in May 2011, he noticed the vehicle was missing from the parking lot. He testified that he did not know appellant and he had not given appellant permission to tow his vehicle or sell it for scrap. Once G.C.M. noticed that his vehicle was missing, he asked the owner of the market if she had called for the vehicle to be towed; the owner denied that she had. B.G. testified that appellant sold the 1991 Chevrolet Astro to Metro Metals on May 6. Appellant signed a statement that he had the right to sell the vehicle to Metro Metals, and Metro Metals paid him $388 for the vehicle. B.G. testified that Metro Metals completed a written ticket stating that appellant had delivered the vehicle to Metro Metals and took photographs of the delivery and of appellant collecting payment for the vehicle. The district court received the records into evidence.

L.M., an employee of the Driver and Vehicle Services division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, testified that neither appellant nor his company, First Class Recovery, have a valid motor-vehicle-dealer license. L.M. testified that an unlicensed individual who buys a vehicle is required to transfer the title of the vehicle into his name before he can sell it, even if he sells it for scrap. She testified that appellant did not transfer the titles of the 2001 Chevrolet Lumina, the 1992 Chrysler LeBaron, or the 1991 Chevrolet Astro into his or his company's name. L.M. testified that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.