Hirt v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Hirt v. State

244 N.W.2d 162, 309 Minn. 574, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1594

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJuly 9, 1976

Docket46081

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 244 N.W.2d 162 (Hirt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hirt v. State, 244 N.W.2d 162, 309 Minn. 574, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1594 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a petition for postconviction relief from a burglary conviction based upon a guilty plea which defendant alleges he entered involuntarily. We affirm.

In Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 214 N. W. 2d 778 (1974), we considered an appeal by the state from an order granting defendant post-conviction relief on the ground that his plea was entered involuntarily. The lower court’s order had been based in part on defendant’s testimony concerning threats and in part upon the state’s failure to call as a rebuttal witness the sheriff who allegedly made the threats. Without excusing the state’s failure to call the sheriff as a rebuttal witness, we decided that under the circumstances it would serve the interests of justice to remand for a rehearing at which the sheriff could testify. On remand the sheriff as well as defendant and another witness testified, and the postconviction court found that defendant’s plea was voluntarily entered. The lower court’s decision was based on its belief that defendant’s testimony was lacking in credibility. We will not interfere with that decision.

Two of the other issues raised by defendant on this appeal, the adequacy of counsel and the sufficiency of the factual basis for his plea, were decided by this court in its earlier opinion. Other issues raised by defendant on this appeal include the legality of his arrest and the search of his car and the failure of the sentencing court to order a pre-sentence investigation. These issues were not litigated below. Further, defendant waived his right to raise the Fourth Amendment issues when he pleaded guilty upon the advice of competent counsel, McLaughlin v. State, 291 Minn. 277, 190 N. W. 2d 867 (1971), and the pre-sentence investigation issue is purely statutory and therefore not properly raised in a postconviction proceeding, Gaulke v. State, 289 Minn. 354, 184 N. W. 2d 599 (1971).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a petition for postconviction relief from a burglary conviction based upon a guilty plea which defendant alleges he entered involuntarily. We affirm.

In Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 214 N. W. 2d 778 (1974), we considered an appeal by the state from an order granting defendant post-conviction relief on the ground that his plea was entered involuntarily. The lower court’s order had been based in part on defendant’s testimony concerning threats and in part upon the state’s failure to call as a rebuttal witness the sheriff who allegedly made the threats. Without excusing the state’s failure to call the sheriff as a rebuttal witness, we decided that under the circumstances it would serve the interests of justice to remand for a rehearing at which the sheriff could testify. On remand the sheriff as well as defendant and another witness testified, and the postconviction court found that defendant’s plea was voluntarily entered. The lower court’s decision was based on its belief that defendant’s testimony was lacking in credibility. We will not interfere with that decision.

Two of the other issues raised by defendant on this appeal, the adequacy of counsel and the sufficiency of the factual basis for his plea, were decided by this court in its earlier opinion. Other issues raised by defendant on this appeal include the legality of his arrest and the search of his car and the failure of the sentencing court to order a pre-sentence investigation. These issues were not litigated below. Further, defendant waived his right to raise the Fourth Amendment issues when he pleaded guilty upon the advice of competent counsel, McLaughlin v. State, 291 Minn. 277, 190 N. W. 2d 867 (1971), and the pre-sentence investigation issue is purely statutory and therefore not properly raised in a postconviction proceeding, Gaulke v. State, 289 Minn. 354, 184 N. W. 2d 599 (1971).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 N.W.2d 162, 309 Minn. 574, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirt-v-state-minn-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack