State v. Otto
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HUSPENI, Judge.
Appellant alleges that a computer printout, the only evidence showing that his prior conviction had not been obtained in violation of his right to counsel, was insufficient to enhance his DWI charge from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 3(a). We affirm.
FACTS
The district court computer printout for appellant’s case history indicates that on May 28, 1986, he was appointed a public defender and pleaded guilty to a DWI. This record reflects Hennepin County practice, which is to appoint public defenders during arraignment hearings.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. NordstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- State v. WarrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. GoffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. LangCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
- State v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
3Cited by2 opinions
- Garcia v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. FussyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990