State v. Lessard

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Lessard

210 N.W.2d 235, 297 Minn. 509, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1134

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 24, 1973

DocketNo. 43918

StatusPublished

This text of 210 N.W.2d 235 (State v. Lessard) 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. Lessard, 210 N.W.2d 235, 297 Minn. 509, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1134 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of violating a Grant Township, Washington County ordinance, appeals from an order of the county court of Washington County denying his motion for a new trial. Defendant contends that the ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state law and because it attempts to regulate a field, namely hunting, preempted by state law. We do not reach the issue of the validity of the ordinance because we have determined that defendant’s appeal to this court was unauthorized.

The prosecution against defendant was initiated in Washington County Municipal Court prior to the abolition of that court by L. 1971, c. 951 (Minn. St. c. 487), which established the Washington County Court. Had the order from which defendant appeals been issued by the Washington County Municipal Court, defendant’s appeal to this court directly would have been proper pursuant to L. 1967, c. 792, § 25 (found in 27 M. S. A. p. 517). However, the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial was issued by the Washington County Court, and pursuant to Minn. St. 1971, § 487.39 (L. 1971, c. 951, § 39), defendant’s appeal should have been to district court. State v. Beckman, 296 Minn. 443, 209 N. W. 2d 402 (1973). We do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal; accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, convicted of violating a Grant Township, Washington County ordinance, appeals from an order of the county court of Washington County denying his motion for a new trial. Defendant contends that the ordinance is invalid because it conflicts with state law and because it attempts to regulate a field, namely hunting, preempted by state law. We do not reach the issue of the validity of the ordinance because we have determined that defendant’s appeal to this court was unauthorized.

The prosecution against defendant was initiated in Washington County Municipal Court prior to the abolition of that court by L. 1971, c. 951 (Minn. St. c. 487), which established the Washington County Court. Had the order from which defendant appeals been issued by the Washington County Municipal Court, defendant’s appeal to this court directly would have been proper pursuant to L. 1967, c. 792, § 25 (found in 27 M. S. A. p. 517). However, the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial was issued by the Washington County Court, and pursuant to Minn. St. 1971, § 487.39 (L. 1971, c. 951, § 39), defendant’s appeal should have been to district court. State v. Beckman, 296 Minn. 443, 209 N. W. 2d 402 (1973). We do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal; accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 N.W.2d 235, 297 Minn. 509, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lessard-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack