Legal Opinion
Ramon v. Minnesota
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided January 13, 1987No. C7-86-1031PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOZNIAK, Judge.
Respondent Manuel Ramon was charged and convicted of possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 152.09, subd. 1(2), 152.15, subd. 2(2), and misdemeanor theft in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.52, subds. 2(1), 3(5). Following a petition for post-conviction relief, the post-conviction court vacated Ramon’s convictions because the use of convictions over ten years old for impeachment at trial without prior notice or hearing amounted to plain error. We reverse and remand for a determination of issues not decided by the post-conviction…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. TureSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- United States v. Carl MasseyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1979
- State v. BurnsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- State Ex Rel. Gray v. TahashSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- Ramon v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- State v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993