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. Bragg

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

December 23, 2013

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Charles Todd Bragg, Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Mille Lacs County District Court File No. 48-CR-08-1964

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Janice Jude, Mille Lacs County Attorney, Melissa M. Saterbak, Assistant County Attorney, Milaca, Minnesota (for respondent)

Charles T. Bragg, Bayport, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Chutich, Judge.

LARKIN, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his request for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.

FACTS

In February 2009, a jury found appellant Charles Todd Bragg guilty of eight counts of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving his then 15- and 16-year-old daughters. The district court sentenced Bragg to 360 months in prison. On December 21, 2010, this court affirmed Bragg's convictions. State v. Bragg, No. A09-2319 (Minn.App. Dec. 21, 2010), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 2011).

On August 20, 2012, Bragg moved the district court for a writ of mandamus ordering the state to produce evidence used at trial and documents from his case. The district court denied Bragg's motion, and this appeal follows.

DECISION

[A] writ of mandamus may be issued to any inferior tribunal, . . . or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. It may require an inferior tribunal to exercise its judgment or proceed to the discharge of any of its functions, but it cannot control judicial discretion.

Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (2012). "The writ shall issue on the information of the party beneficially interested, but it shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Minn. Stat. § 586.02 (2012).

"Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy that courts issue only when the petitioner shows that there is a clear and present official duty to perform a certain act." Kramer v. Otter Tail Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 647 N.W.2d 23, 26 (Minn.App. 2002) (quotation omitted). "To be entitled to mandamus relief the petitioner must show three elements: (1) the failure of an official to perform a duty clearly imposed by law; (2) a public wrong specifically injurious to petitioner; and (3) no other adequate [legal] remedy." Id. "When a decision on a writ of mandamus is based solely on a legal ...


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.