State v. Fellegy
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 66
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Fellegy, a non-Ojibwe, caught a walleye out of season on Lake Mille Lacs and was charged under Minn. Stat. § 97C.395, subd. 1(a)(1).
- Ojibwe Indians hold treaty-based rights to fish Mille Lacs, exempt from prosecution, creating a potential equal-protection issue for Fellegy’s prosecution.
- Fellegy moved pretrial to dismiss on equal-protection grounds, contending racially discriminatory enforcement.
- The district court rejected the claim without an evidentiary hearing and convicted Fellegy.
- On appeal, the court upheld the conviction, holding no evidentiary hearing was required given the asserted facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the November 2010 motion waived or rightly denied on the merits? | Fellegy contends the motion was timely and merits review. | Respondent district court properly deemed the motion waived and found no merit. | Yes, waived and denied on the merits. |
| Was the March 2011 memorandum a new motion or the same one, and should it be considered? | March 2011 filing should be same motion; timely review warranted. | March 2011 memorandum constituted a new motion, untimely. | New motion; untimely and properly denied. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by not ordering an evidentiary hearing on the equal-protection claim? | Fellegy sought an evidentiary hearing to explore discriminatory enforcement. | No evidentiary hearing required where claims are facially insufficient. | No abuse; no evidentiary hearing required. |
| Did the claim of selective, discriminatory enforcement merit any pretrial relief? | Alleges racially motivated prosecution based on disparate treatment of Ojibwe and non-Ojibwe. | The claim lacked the necessary nexus and specificity to compel relief. | Claim untenable; no pretrial relief warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hart, 723 N.W.2d 254 (Minn.2006) (district court has discretion to manage docket and scheduling)
- State v. Seifert, 423 N.W.2d 368 (Minn.1988) (pro se litigants held to same procedural standards as attorneys)
- Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1979) (tribal fishing rights can coexist with state management plans)
- Minn. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1999) (treaty rights to fish supersede state enforcement in ceded waters)
- State v. Russell, 343 N.W.2d 36 (Minn.1984) (heavy burden to show selective prosecution; similarly situated Required)
- State v. Hyland, 431 N.W.2d 868 (Minn.App.1988) (threshold showing needed to trigger pretrial inquiry into discrimination)
- State v. Buschette, 307 N.W.2d 60 (Minn.1976) (procedural requirements for discriminatory enforcement claims; pretrial standards)
- Sharich, 297 Minn. 19, 209 N.W.2d 907 (1973) (pretrial evidentiary testing of discriminatory enforcement claims; evidentiary hearing permitted)