State v. Reinke

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Reinke

207 N.W.2d 282, 296 Minn. 501, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1249

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedApril 27, 1973

Docket43315

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 N.W.2d 282 (State v. Reinke) 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. Reinke, 207 N.W.2d 282, 296 Minn. 501, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1249 (Mich. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated forgery in violation of Minn. St. 609.625, subds. 1(1) and 3. He seeks to withdraw his guilty plea because there is no affirmative showing in the record that he understood the meaning of § 609.05, which deals with the criminal *502 liability of one who intentionally aids another in the commission of a crime. This contention is without merit. It is presumed that counsel adequately informed his client of the nature and elements of the offense, including the meaning of Minn. St. 609.05. State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 199 N. W. 2d 423 (1972); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522, 198 N. W. 2d 542 (1972); State v. Feather, 288 Minn. 556, 181 N. W. 2d 478 (1970). In any case, we are not persuaded that a failure to spell out the effect of the statute was a factor in defendant’s decision to plead guilty.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated forgery in violation of Minn. St. 609.625, subds. 1(1) and 3. He seeks to withdraw his guilty plea because there is no affirmative showing in the record that he understood the meaning of § 609.05, which deals with the criminal *502 liability of one who intentionally aids another in the commission of a crime. This contention is without merit. It is presumed that counsel adequately informed his client of the nature and elements of the offense, including the meaning of Minn. St. 609.05. State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 199 N. W. 2d 423 (1972); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522, 198 N. W. 2d 542 (1972); State v. Feather, 288 Minn. 556, 181 N. W. 2d 478 (1970). In any case, we are not persuaded that a failure to spell out the effect of the statute was a factor in defendant’s decision to plead guilty.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 N.W.2d 282, 296 Minn. 501, 1973 Minn. LEXIS 1249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reinke-minn-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack