State of Minnesota v. Michael Adam Davis

Syllabus

Appellant challenges his criminal-sexual-conduct convictions, arguing that (1) the district court erred when it admitted certain evidence, (2) the state's discovery violations require a new trial, (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (4) the state presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in a position of authority, and (5) the district court erred when it calculated his criminal-history score. We affirm.