State v. Dickenson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Dickenson

205 N.W.2d 339, 295 Minn. 580, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1355

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 16, 1973

DocketNo. 43477

StatusPublished

This text of 205 N.W.2d 339 (State v. Dickenson) 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

State v. Dickenson, 205 N.W.2d 339, 295 Minn. 580, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1355 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of possession of a forged instrument, Minn. St. 609.625, subd. 3, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 0 to 10 years, contends on this appeal from the judgment of conviction that he should be permitted to withdraw the guilty plea, upon which the conviction was based, because (1) the prosecutor did not fulfill his promise to abstain from making a recommendation as to sentence, and (2) the record of the hearing on the plea of guilty does not sufficiently demonstrate either that there was a factual basis for the plea or that defendant’s waiver of his constitutional rights was knowingly and understandingly made. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that neither of these contentions has merit.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of possession of a forged instrument, Minn. St. 609.625, subd. 3, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 0 to 10 years, contends on this appeal from the judgment of conviction that he should be permitted to withdraw the guilty plea, upon which the conviction was based, because (1) the prosecutor did not fulfill his promise to abstain from making a recommendation as to sentence, and (2) the record of the hearing on the plea of guilty does not sufficiently demonstrate either that there was a factual basis for the plea or that defendant’s waiver of his constitutional rights was knowingly and understandingly made. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that neither of these contentions has merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.W.2d 339, 295 Minn. 580, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dickenson-minn-1973.