Nepple v. State

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Nepple v. State

198 N.W.2d 341, 293 Minn. 516, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1267

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 9, 1972

DocketNo. 43038

StatusPublished

This text of 198 N.W.2d 341 (Nepple 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

Nepple v. State, 198 N.W.2d 341, 293 Minn. 516, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1267 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of armed robbery, appeals from the denial of postconviction relief. We affirm.

Contrary to what defendant contends, (1) the record does support the finding that defendant, who has a high school diploma and admits that he has no difficulty reading English, voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently, and understandingly waived his right to have counsel present at lineups by signing a written waiver form which advised him of his rights, and (2) the fact that a substitute judge, who did not hear the evidence at the postconviction hearing, ruled on defendant’s petition [517]*517did not deny defendant due process because defendant, through his counsel, specifically stated that he did not object to the substitute judge’s deciding his petition on the basis of the typewritten transcripts and files.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of armed robbery, appeals from the denial of postconviction relief. We affirm.

Contrary to what defendant contends, (1) the record does support the finding that defendant, who has a high school diploma and admits that he has no difficulty reading English, voluntarily, knowingly, intelligently, and understandingly waived his right to have counsel present at lineups by signing a written waiver form which advised him of his rights, and (2) the fact that a substitute judge, who did not hear the evidence at the postconviction hearing, ruled on defendant’s petition [517]*517did not deny defendant due process because defendant, through his counsel, specifically stated that he did not object to the substitute judge’s deciding his petition on the basis of the typewritten transcripts and files.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 N.W.2d 341, 293 Minn. 516, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nepple-v-state-minn-1972.