Facts: On November15, 2002 Petitioner and Co Defendant obtained two credit cards which they usedwithout the owner’s consent. First they went to a Target store in Minneapolis Hennepin County and used one of the credit cards bearing the name Jay Khan to purchase 3 gift cards for $900 each. Than they drove to another Target Store in Coon Rapids and purchased two electronic items worth $319.49, another gift card and a camera for a combined value of $850 using the credit cards bearing the name Christopher Reams and Jay Khan. Within 11 minutes they arrived at the Fridley Target store and purchased two more gift cards worth $900 each using the credit card bearing the name Christopher Reams. They left the Target store in Fridley but came back 15 minutes later and tried to purchase another $1,800 worth of gift cards on the same credit cards but this time the transaction was declined.

Petitioner and Co Defendant at the end of the day had a total of 6 gift cards with an alleged face value of about $5,000 dollars. They also had purchased 3 electronic items with a value of around $669.49. On November 18, 2002 Petitioner and codefendant arrived at Target store in Saint Paul and purchased merchandise totaling $962.93 by redeeming four of the gift cards previously acquired at other Target Stores. After completion of the sale, Petitioner and Co defendant were stopped by Off Duty Sgt, Duff from leaving the Target Store. Target store learned that the gift cards used in the St. Paul transaction were purchased at other Target stores using stolen credit card numbers. Sgt. Duff calledOfficer Price to assist in a felony theft matter. During a search incident to arrest, officers found Target gift cards on Petitioner with a Face value of $2,748.04. They also found a California Driver’s license in the name of Jay Khan with Petitioner’s photo on it. They also found the receipt for the Target St. Paul purchase.Police searched the vehicle that Petitioner drove to the Target store and found receipts for the purchase of Target gift cards from the Fridley, Coon Rapid and Roseville Target stores. St. Paul Police spoke with Target Fraud Investigator Scott Mahnke who stated that over $13,000 worth of purchases were made with gift cards purchased with stolen Visa numbers at Target stores throughout the Twin Cities. Mahnke gave St. Paul Police a list of all credit cards used at the Target Stores. St. Paul police called and verified with each account holder and established that their credit card were used without permission.

Saint Paul police than indicted via complaint Petitioner and Co defendant using the cumulative evidence as probable cause and charged them with Felony Theft By Swindle on November 21, 2002. Subsequently St. Paul Police forwarded the evidence gathered to other law enforcement jurisdictions for further investigation.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to the Theft by swindle charge on 01/08/2003 and was sentenced on 03/03/2003. Within a few weeks after pleading guilty to the charge in Ramsey County, Petitioner was indicted via complaint in Anoka County on 01/21/2003, for Financial Transaction Card Fraud for purchasing 3 gift cards and electronic items with the credit cards bearing the name Christopher Reams and Jay Khan on 11/15/2002. Petitioner pleaded guilty on 06/23/2003 and was sentenced on 08/06/2003. On 10/2/2003 Petitioner was called to Minneapolis Police Station to testify about the offense on 11/15/2002 of purchasing gift cards at Target using the credit card bearing the name Jay Khan wherethe petitioner, after informing police that he had already been convicted of the scheme in other counties, confessed to all related allegations. Hennepin County indicted Petitioner on 12/02/2003 for the Minneapolis offense and Petitioner then pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 02/10/2004.

Issue:

  1. Were Petitioner’s constitutional rights for Due Process and freedom from Double Jeopardy violated?
  2. Were the three separate indictments multiplicious and constituted serialized prosecution?
  3. Was swindle scheme accomplished by means of financial transaction card fraud?
  4. Was the evidencefrom Ramsey County, including the factual portion of the probable cause section of the criminal complaint,including the investigative act of contacting each credit card holder to verify that their card was used without permission at Target stores, the only evidence required to convict in all three counties?
  5. DidRamsey County offense necessarily prove, and/or was proved by the Anoka County and Hennepin County offenses?
  6. In Petitioner’s case, is theft by swindle an included offense of financial transaction card fraud?
  7. Did the Petitioner’s behavior constitute a single behavioral incident?
  8. Was there a single criminal objective and was each act performed in furtherance of that objective?
  9. Did the State fail to meet its burden in proving that the offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident?
  10. Did the State exaggerate the criminality of Petitioner’s behavior?
  11. Did the State inflict cruel and unusual punishment by punishing Petitioner 3 times for the same behavioral incident?
  12. Was petitioner’s counsel deficient in his duties in protecting Petitioner from serialized prosecution and multiple punishments?
  13. Was Petitioner’s counsel deficient in his duties by not considering the totality of the case and failed to comprehend the apparent course of criminal conduct?
  14. Was petitioner’s counsel deficient in his duties by not explaining to Petitioner how the $13,000 worth of theft charges brought against him were calculated before counseling Petitioner to plead guilty?
  15. Did Petitioner enter guilty pleas unintelligently? Was his right to trial compromised?
  16. Was there prosecutor misconduct in that prosecution had to have known of the subsequent complaints filed on related offenses and failed to join the offenses into one indictment?
  17. Was Petitioner repeatedly harassed by the State and did that action compel him to violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination?
  18. Did the off duty officer perform an unwarranted stop?
  19. Was the search of Petitioner’s vehicle unconstitutional?

1 | Page