Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Ornelas

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 26, 2004No. C4-02-1693Published

1DissentBlatz, Chief Justice

Because the appellant acknowledges that his probation condition included a no-unsupervised contact with a minor provision and because the appellant did not raise the issue in the district court, the court of appeals, or his petition for review to this court, I respectfully dissent.

In my view, it is incongruous to acknowledge that Ornelas waived the probation condition issue and then proceed to comb the record — or more accurately, the lack thereof — to determine whether the no-contact requirement was actually imposed. Here, the majority recognizes that Ornelas acknowledged that the no-contact…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Haugen v. PetersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API