State v. Seifert

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Seifert

354 N.W.2d 432, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1460

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 14, 1984

DocketNo. C4-83-386

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 354 N.W.2d 432 (State v. Seifert) 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. Seifert, 354 N.W.2d 432, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1460 (Mich. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WAHL, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of procuring a controlled substance by fraud, Minn.Stat. § 152.09, subd. 2(1) (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to an executed prison term of 1 year and 1 day. The appeal brief filed by the State Public Defender argues that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Defendant’s pro se supplementary brief argues that the Public Defender who represented him at trial failed to represent him effectively. There is no merit to either contention. The state’s evidence established that defendant went from Minneapolis to Duluth and, through intentional material misstatements and omissions of fact, obtained four prescriptions for Dilaudid, a class 2 narcotic, as well as other drugs, from four different doctors in a 2-day period. Furthermore, the record on appeal does not mandate the conclusion that defendant’s trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. State v. Lehmann, 331 N.W.2d 759 (Minn.1983).

Affirmed.

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

WAHL, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of procuring a controlled substance by fraud, Minn.Stat. § 152.09, subd. 2(1) (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to an executed prison term of 1 year and 1 day. The appeal brief filed by the State Public Defender argues that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Defendant’s pro se supplementary brief argues that the Public Defender who represented him at trial failed to represent him effectively. There is no merit to either contention. The state’s evidence established that defendant went from Minneapolis to Duluth and, through intentional material misstatements and omissions of fact, obtained four prescriptions for Dilaudid, a class 2 narcotic, as well as other drugs, from four different doctors in a 2-day period. Furthermore, the record on appeal does not mandate the conclusion that defendant’s trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. State v. Lehmann, 331 N.W.2d 759 (Minn.1983).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 N.W.2d 432, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-seifert-minn-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack