Opinion
A22-1541
05-15-2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Rajuan Marquice Jones, Appellant.
Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-20-3970
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jeanne M. Cochran, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this direct appeal, self-represented appellant Rajuan Marquice Jones challenges his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm on numerous grounds. He also contends that the district court erred by denying his postconviction petition. We conclude that all issues raised by Jones to challenge his conviction are either unreviewable on the record before us or forfeited. We further conclude that the district court did not err by denying Jones's petition for postconviction relief. We therefore affirm.
2. On February 11, 2020, Minneapolis police officers arrested Jones after responding to a citizen complaint that Jones had a gun and was selling drugs on Hennepin Avenue. The next day, respondent State of Minnesota charged Jones with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by an ineligible person, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2018).
3. In March 2020, while represented by counsel, Jones filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him, alleging that the stop leading to his arrest was unlawful. Between March 2020 and May 2021, Jones filed a petition to proceed pro se, as well as numerous documents seeming to espouse views consistent with the "sovereign citizen" movement. In December 2020, after a competency evaluation and a hearing, the district court filed an order concluding that Jones was competent to understand the proceedings and participate in his defense and noting that Jones had elected to represent himself.
See generally Joshua P. Weir, Comment, Sovereign Citizens: A Reasoned Response to the Madness, 19 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 829, 834-38 (2015) (describing the origins and modern belief systems of the "sovereign citizen" movement).
4. At the evidentiary hearing in May 2021, the state elicited testimony from three Minneapolis police officers. Jones did not call any witnesses, nor did he testify. The district court received two exhibits over Jones's objection: a still photograph from a body-worn camera video and a body-worn camera video.
5. In June 2021, the district court issued an order denying Jones's motion to suppress. In its order, the district court made the following findings: on February 11, 2020, Minneapolis police received a complaint about a person with a gun selling drugs on Hennepin Avenue; the caller described the person as a Black male in a red jacket; an officer located the person, later identified as Jones, via surveillance cameras; the officer saw Jones displaying behavior typical of a person concealing a firearm; the officer also saw a clear imprint of the firearm inside Jones's jacket; when a patrol officer attempted to make an investigatory stop, Jones fled on foot; as he was running, Jones stumbled and fell; as he was falling, Jones threw a handgun into a nearby snowbank; officers then arrested Jones and recovered the handgun from the snowbank.
6. Based on these findings, the district court concluded that "officers had a reasonable, objective basis for conducting an investigatory stop." The district court further concluded that officers were justified in conducting a pat frisk of Jones after they lawfully stopped him because "police had a reasonable basis for believing [that Jones] was armed." The district court therefore denied Jones's motion to suppress the evidence obtained after the stop.
7. In October 2021, Jones waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to submit the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by an ineligible person to the district court at a bench trial. The district court heard testimony from two police officers, a firearm-forensics technician, and Jones. The district court also received several exhibits over Jones's objection, including surveillance video, body-worn camera video, and documentation of Jones's prior convictions.
8. The district court found Jones guilty. In its order reaching this decision, the district court credited the state's witnesses and found that "[t]heir testimony was thoroughly corroborated by surveillance video and body camera footage." The district court made a number of factual findings consistent with the findings in the order denying Jones's motion to suppress. The district court also found that Jones was ineligible to possess a firearm at the time of his arrest because he has two prior convictions of fifth-degree drug possession. Based on these findings, the district court found Jones guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by an ineligible person previously convicted of a crime of violence, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2). After Jones failed to appear for the verdict, the district court issued a warrant for his arrest. Jones was subsequently arrested, and the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison on August 3, 2022.
9. On August 29, 2022, Jones filed a petition for postconviction relief on the ground that the evidence offered at his court trial was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, among other arguments. The district court denied Jones's postconviction petition as premature under Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1 (2020) (explaining that a person convicted of a crime can seek postconviction relief "[e]xcept at a time when direct appellate relief is available").
10. Jones filed a direct appeal, but he did not order a transcript of either the suppression hearing or the trial. The record before us contains no transcript of either proceeding.
11. Here, on direct appeal, Jones argues that his conviction must be reversed for numerous reasons: (1) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction, (2) the district court failed to consider favorable evidence, (3) the district court unconstitutionally construed Jones's prior convictions as "crimes of violence," (4) by classifying Jones as a "prohibited person" ineligible to possess a firearm based on his prior convictions, Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2), violates double-jeopardy protections, (5) judicial officers committed misconduct by referring to Jones as a "sovereign citizen" and by substituting one judge for another, (6) Jones's written admissions of guilt with respect to his prior convictions were involuntary, (7) the stop and seizure of Jones by police was unconstitutional, (8) the district court erred by not requiring the state's witnesses to answer questions posed by Jones, (9) judicial officers were disqualified by conflicts of interest, and (10) the district court improperly issued a post-trial arrest warrant. Jones also challenges the district court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief.
12. The state contends that none of the issues raised by Jones on appeal to challenge his conviction warrant reversal. The state argues that all of Jones's arguments are either unreviewable because Jones failed to order transcripts of the relevant proceedings or forfeited because Jones makes his arguments in summary and conclusory form, does not cite to applicable law, and did not raise the issues in district court. The state also argues that the district court did not err in denying Jones's postconviction petition as prematurely filed. We agree with the state that none of the issues that Jones raises to challenge his conviction warrant reversal.
13. First, the record is inadequate to enable appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support Jones's conviction. When appellate courts evaluate the sufficiency of direct evidence presented to support a conviction, we conduct "a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence" was sufficient to support the verdict. State v. Horst, 880 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). "The record on appeal consists of the documents filed in the district court, the offered exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any." Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 8. An appellant is responsible for ordering a transcript of the proceedings necessary for appellate review. Id., subd. 9(a); Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1(a). And "[a] reviewing court cannot consider a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue unless provided with a trial transcript." Hoagland v. State, 518 N.W.2d 531, 534 (Minn. 1994). Here, Jones did not order a transcript of his trial. Therefore, we cannot conduct "a painstaking analysis of the record" to discern whether the evidence, including the trial testimony by the police officers who apprehended Jones, was sufficient to support Jones's conviction. See id.; Horst, 880 N.W.2d at 40.
14. We are similarly unable to determine, on the basis of the record before us, the validity of Jones's claims that the district court (1) failed to consider favorable evidence, (2) violated constitutional principles by classifying his prior convictions as "crimes of violence," (3) committed judicial misconduct during the proceedings, (4) improperly credited involuntary admissions of guilt related to Jones's prior convictions, (5) erred by denying Jones's motion to suppress evidence, (6) should have required the state's witnesses to answer questions posed by Jones before and after trial, (7) should have been disqualified for conflicts of interest, and (8) improperly issued a warrant for Jones's arrest after he failed to appear for the verdict. "An appellant has the responsibility of providing an appellate court with a record adequate for review." State v. Goodloe, 718 N.W.2d 413, 425 (Minn. 2006). Here, Jones did not order transcripts of any of the relevant district court proceedings necessary to address the eight issues noted above. Thus, we cannot review the merits of these claims.
15. We also conclude that Jones has forfeited his constitutional challenge to his designation as a "prohibited person" ineligible to possess a firearm. "Although some accommodations may be made for pro se litigants, we generally hold them to the same standards as attorneys." State v. German, 929 N.W.2d 466, 476-77 (Minn.App. 2019). "Arguments are forfeited if they are presented in a summary and conclusory form, do not cite to applicable law, and fail to analyze the law when claiming that errors of law occurred." Id. at 477 (quotation omitted). In his brief, Jones appears to argue that his classification as a "prohibited person" ineligible to possess a firearm violates double-jeopardy protections. But he has not sufficiently briefed this issue to enable appellate review, citing one irrelevant statute and including no relevant law or further explanation of the basis for his claim. Because this argument is presented in summary and conclusory form and is unsupported by any relevant legal authority, it is forfeited. See id.
16. Finally, we reject Jones's challenge to the district court's denial of his postconviction petition. A person convicted of a crime may file a petition for postconviction relief based on a claim that the conviction violated their rights, "[e]xcept at a time when direct appellate relief is available." Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(1). To pursue a direct appeal in a felony case, a person may file a notice of appeal up to 90 days after the district court enters final judgment. Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(3)(a). Here, the district court entered final judgment on August 3, 2022. Jones filed his petition for postconviction relief on August 29, 2022, just 26 days later. In denying Jones's petition, the district court explained that the petition was filed prematurely because Jones had until November 1, 2022, to file a direct appeal and that period had "not yet run." We conclude that the district court properly denied Jones's postconviction petition because Jones filed the petition while the opportunity to pursue a direct appeal was still available to him. See Minn. Stat. § 590.01, subd. 1(1).
17. We are not persuaded otherwise by Jones's argument that the district court erred in denying his postconviction petition because the "denial was solely based on the contention that [Jones] anticipated hiring an attorney which he never entered into [the] record nor did he contact any said attorney." There is no indication in the district court's order that the denial of Jones's postconviction petition was related in any way to whether Jones anticipated hiring an attorney.
18. In sum, we conclude that all of Jones's arguments challenging his conviction are unavailing and that the district court did not err in denying Jones's postconviction petition because it was filed prematurely. We therefore affirm.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.