Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Ward

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 15, 1984No. C8-83-1461Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRandall, Judge

I concur with the majority on the affirmance of the conviction. I accept the analysis and opinion of the panel on the issue of change of venue and the issue of admissibility of prior conviction for impeachment use.

However, on the third legal issue, the computation of the defendant’s criminal history score, I would reverse the decision of the trial court and remand the case for the imposition of a sentence based on a criminal history score of two rather than three.

The State accepted appellant’s factual recitation of the relevant dates and background on this issue. The majority opinion also…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Gagnon v. ScarpelliSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Hensley v. Municipal Court, San Jose-Milpitas Judicial Dist., Santa Clara Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Gilbert Manly Spring v. Harry Caldwell, Chief of Police, City of Houston, State of Texas, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
  5. People v. RodgersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API