Legal Opinion

State v. Otto

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 20, 1990No. C3-89-1591PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. State v. NordstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  2. State v. WarrenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  3. State v. GoffSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
  4. State v. LangCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1988
  5. State v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Garcia v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State v. FussyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API