State v. Martinez

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Martinez

248 N.W.2d 722, 311 Minn. 532, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1641

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 3, 1976

DocketNo. 46293

StatusPublished

This text of 248 N.W.2d 722 (State v. Martinez) 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. Martinez, 248 N.W.2d 722, 311 Minn. 532, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1641 (Mich. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of attempted burglary with a tool, Minn. St. 609.17 and 609.58, and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 10 years’ imprisonment. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt to justify the verdict, that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and in making certain instructions, that the prosecutor committed misconduct, and that defense counsel did not represent him adequately. No useful purpose would be served by our discussing these issues in detail. Suffice it to say, we have carefully considered all of these issues and find they are without merit.

Affirmed.

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

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

Per Curiam.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of a charge of attempted burglary with a tool, Minn. St. 609.17 and 609.58, and was sentenced by the trial court to a maximum indeterminate term of 10 years’ imprisonment. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence of his guilt to justify the verdict, that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and in making certain instructions, that the prosecutor committed misconduct, and that defense counsel did not represent him adequately. No useful purpose would be served by our discussing these issues in detail. Suffice it to say, we have carefully considered all of these issues and find they are without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.W.2d 722, 311 Minn. 532, 1976 Minn. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martinez-minn-1976.