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. Winbush

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

March 12, 2018

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Russell Vincent Winbush, Appellant.

         Pine County District Court File No. 58-CR-16-76

          Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Reese Frederickson, Pine County Attorney, Pine City, Minnesota (for respondent)

          Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Lydia M. Villalva Lijó, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

          Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.

         SYLLABUS

         When a defendant has been charged with the possession of chemical reagents or precursors with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, it is plain error to fail to instruct the jury as to which items in the defendant's possession are chemical reagents or precursors under Minn. Stat. § 152.0262, subd. 1(b) (2016).

          OPINION

          CONNOLLY, Judge

         Appellant was charged with possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a crime of violence (Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subds. 1(2), 2(b) (2014)), possession of a short-barrel shotgun (Minn. Stat. § 609.67, subd. 2 (2014)), second-degree controlled-substance crime- possession of a mixture of a total weight of 25 grams containing methamphetamine (Minn. Stat. § 152.022, subd. 2(a)(1) (2014)), possession of chemical reagents or precursors to the manufacture of methamphetamine (Minn. Stat. § 152.0262, subd. 1(b) (2014)), and fifth-degree controlled-substance crime-possession of a mixture containing a controlled substance (Minn. Stat. §§ 152.025, subd. 2(b)(1), 609.11, subd. 5 (2014)). A jury found him guilty on all five counts, and he was sentenced on all five. He challenges his conviction for possession of chemical reagents or precursors to the manufacture of methamphetamine on the ground that the district court erred by not instructing the jury as to which items in appellant's possession were chemical reagents or precursors under Minn. Stat. § 152.0262, subd. 1(b), and by admitting into evidence an unauthenticated copy of appellant's Facebook page; he challenges his multiple sentences on the ground that all five offenses were part of the same incident; and, in his pro se supplemental brief, he challenges the district court's jurisdiction and alleges a violation of his Fourth-Amendment rights. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

         FACTS

         About 3:30 a.m. on January 28, 2016, appellant Russell Winbush awakened an acquaintance, D.J., by pounding on D.J.'s door, shouting that someone owed appellant $150, and pushing his way into D.J.'s residence. D.J. pushed appellant out and locked the door.

         About 10:30 that morning, D.J. and appellant met on the street. D.J. told appellant not to wake him in the middle of the night and to stay away from D.J.'s house. Appellant opened his coat and showed D.J. a firearm in his waistband; D.J. observed black tape wrapped around the firearm. Appellant told D.J. that he "would shoot anyone that stood in his way" and that he "meant business."

         D.J. was aware that appellant was prohibited from possessing a firearm and reported appellant's possession of a firearm to a sheriff's deputy. The deputy, knowing appellant lived with his mother about two blocks from the location of his encounter with D.J., went to her house with another officer. When they knocked, appellant opened the door, but slammed it shut after he was informed that he was under arrest. The officers forced the door open and entered the house, where they saw appellant lying face down in the living room and his mother sitting in a chair.

         A search of appellant revealed a glass pipe with burnt white residue, later determined to be methamphetamine, in his shirt pocket. Appellant's mother permitted a search of the house, which produced a loaded, sawed-off shotgun partially wrapped with black tape; a note stating, "150 owed 1 p.m., " and a backpack containing a bottle with white sludge that was later determined to the basis of a mixture of a total weight of 25 grams or more containing methamphetamine, a bottle of Draino, batteries, a funnel, and a recipe listing the ingredients and giving directions for making methamphetamine. The officers evacuated the residence, suspecting it was a clandestine methamphetamine lab and therefore dangerous.

         ISSUES

I. Did the omission of a jury instruction on whether the items found in appellant's possession were listed in Minn. Stat. § 152.0262, subd. 1(b), constitute plain error?
II. Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a copy of appellant's Facebook page, offered to establish his residence in his mother's house?
III. Did the district court err in imposing multiple sentences?
IV. Do appellant's pro se arguments entitle him to a ...

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.