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?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . 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 zanimously 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? Ruling below: The trial Court rejected Petitioner’s request for a Unanimous Verdict and the jury returned the following verdict: “We the Jury find the Defendant guilty of the charge of Possession of a firearm or Ammunition by a Prohibited Person.” (T. 359-60, 8/1/19 verdict.) Apposite authority: | State v. Cyrus, NW. (2019) WL 4745292 | State v. Dow, N.W. (2019) WL 4594236 State v. Stempf, 627 N.W.2D 352 (Minn. App. 2001) | . IL. 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? II. 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 were no 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? OP nse, oll twelve MeoAS Must unanimously AOReL that the dof dant ommitta 0 sinale, Ceiminal art heyond a Reasonably’. dotubt, In 2015, “ne Minnesota Leaislatuee. amvnded Serton 674.114, Aibdivision | Lpenhibrt Corton Deonle Seam poss. ammitnitio in Addition “to ods .FiR@akms «A. Ts possessing OMMUATHON a. Separate criminal att -Rom ” poss + af te ab fan f BR. wus “ ed (ue tes sheds all -kuelue. \iuRors unan inous ty Agreed hot the defendant poss. a, fteenemM ana unanipet M Apkead that tht dete Qala ne Nass. AMMO? ORROR in This (ose. DV Rovctna P+tHone e's foe A Wore KO IW Aal P, wth ROR ARLLO haet Pottion’k Noss. a FigeakM and lok Wnaninous | ~ Was Petitioners Constiticthonal Riahts I\Vio ate a OAM +o iS Mirando R10, cS NO being Yad to him at th time OF Reeest andar Aho Kime ot leew oF CAN hall on o@alnut 19119 % —_ ook hho Public Moka tv 0 bit ol 2 (Ne lon AlTLN9 Hah Risk Wakean 0 2" bexecute. Wareart \Norkan+ tsa: eoallhy ee re RAT ] AS AGF ean llN. [