State v. Ramstad

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Ramstad

348 N.W.2d 391, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3185

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedMay 29, 1984

DocketC1-83-1592

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 348 N.W.2d 391 (State v. Ramstad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Ramstad, 348 N.W.2d 391, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor DWI, was sentenced, and appeals from the sentence. There is no transcript of the evidence. The appellant was indigent at time of trial.

Appellant contends he should have been sentenced in accordance with certain policy guidelines on first offenses in the Tenth Judicial District. Appellant is in error. The statute, rather than any policy guideline, fixes the maximum punishment. The appellant’s sentence was within the statutory limits.

Our review of the sentence reflects that appellant, together with other conditions, was ordered “to pay the sum of $200.00 as costs of prosecution after payment of the fine and surcharge.” Such costs are permitted under Minn.Stat. § 631.48 (1982), but we caution the trial court before seeking to collect the costs of prosecution, to make an appropriate finding concerning appellant’s ability to pay. See Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 46-47, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 2121-2122, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974); and State v. Kottenbroch, 319 N.W.2d 465, 473 (N.D.1982).

Other claimed errors raised by appellant have been considered and determined to be without merit.

DECISION

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

FOLEY, Judge.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor DWI, was sentenced, and appeals from the sentence. There is no transcript of the evidence. The appellant was indigent at time of trial.

Appellant contends he should have been sentenced in accordance with certain policy guidelines on first offenses in the Tenth Judicial District. Appellant is in error. The statute, rather than any policy guideline, fixes the maximum punishment. The appellant’s sentence was within the statutory limits.

Our review of the sentence reflects that appellant, together with other conditions, was ordered “to pay the sum of $200.00 as costs of prosecution after payment of the fine and surcharge.” Such costs are permitted under Minn.Stat. § 631.48 (1982), but we caution the trial court before seeking to collect the costs of prosecution, to make an appropriate finding concerning appellant’s ability to pay. See Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 46-47, 94 S.Ct. 2116, 2121-2122, 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974); and State v. Kottenbroch, 319 N.W.2d 465, 473 (N.D.1982).

Other claimed errors raised by appellant have been considered and determined to be without merit.

DECISION

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 N.W.2d 391, 1984 Minn. App. LEXIS 3185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramstad-minnctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack