State v. Hanson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant claims that the record of his prior D.W.I. conviction did not contain a valid waiver of right to counsel and, therefore, cannot be used to enhance his present D.W.I. conviction from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor. We agree and reverse.
FACTS
Appellant was convicted of gross misdemeanor D.W.I,, Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(a) and subd. 3(a) (Supp.1983) for driving with an alcohol concentration of .10 within five years of a previous conviction. The omnibus court ruled that the record of appellant’s prior 1981 D.W.I. conviction showed that in entering a plea…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Henderson v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- State v. NordstromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- Burt v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- State v. MotlSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. SandmoenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- State v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- Vernlund v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- State v. GrunewaldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- State v. LyleCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.