State v. Hardie

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Hardie

203 N.W.2d 368, 295 Minn. 526, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1142

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 15, 1972

DocketNos. 42206, 42983

StatusPublished

This text of 203 N.W.2d 368 (State v. Hardie) 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. Hardie, 203 N.W.2d 368, 295 Minn. 526, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1142 (Mich. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of aggravated assault, Minn. St. 1969, § 609.225, subd. 2, contends on appeal from the conviction and from the district court’s order denying his petition for postconviction relief that (1) he should be discharged from custody because the state violated his right to a speedy trial, or (2) he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea upon which the conviction was based because, among other things, he was pressured into making the plea. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that neither contention has merit since the contrary findings on each issue by the postconviction court are amply sustained by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Todd took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of aggravated assault, Minn. St. 1969, § 609.225, subd. 2, contends on appeal from the conviction and from the district court’s order denying his petition for postconviction relief that (1) he should be discharged from custody because the state violated his right to a speedy trial, or (2) he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea upon which the conviction was based because, among other things, he was pressured into making the plea. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that neither contention has merit since the contrary findings on each issue by the postconviction court are amply sustained by the evidence.

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Todd took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 N.W.2d 368, 295 Minn. 526, 1972 Minn. LEXIS 1142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hardie-minn-1972.