No. 21-5182

Pedro Ray Tejeda v. Minnesota

Lower Court: Minnesota
Docketed: 2021-07-22
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: ammunition constitutional-rights criminal-possession criminal-procedure due-process firearm jury-instruction possession trial-procedure unanimous-verdict
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)

I. Must my conviction for Ineligible Person in Poss. of Ammo or firearm be reversed, remanded for new trial and or vacated based on Unanimous Verdict issue? The State alleged within a single count that Petitioner illegally possessed a firearm and illegally possessed ammunition. Because the State alleged separate criminal acts, Petitioner requested that the trial Court require the jury to indicate on its verdict form whether it unanimously agreed that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner illegally possessed ammunition or the firearm. The trial Court rejected Petitioner's request for an "Unanimous Verdict" and the verdict form the jury returned indicated that the jury found that the Petitioner illegally possessed a firearm or ammunition.

Did the trial Court commit reversible error by rejecting Petitioner's request for a Unanimous verdict?

II. Did the district Court commit reversible error by refusing to suppress the evidence found during the search of the house where the issuing judge did not have a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed AND OR A NEXUS to search for a firearm?

III. Was Petitioner's constitutional rights violated as he was in custody for 143 days before his trial commenced and was in custody for 111 days after he demanded a speedy trial? Given that there exceptional circumstances justifying such a delay, and petitioner repeatedly requested a speedy trial, must his conviction be reversed because he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial?were no

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Must my conviction for Ineligible Person in Poss. of Ammo or firearm be reversed, remanded for new trial and or vacated based on Unanimous Verdict issue?

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-02
Waiver of right of respondent Minnesota to respond filed.
2021-07-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 23, 2021)

Attorneys

Minnesota
Jonathan P. SchmidtHennepin County Attorney's Office, Respondent
Pedro Ray Tejeda
Pedro Ray Tejeda — Petitioner