State v. Thomale

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Thomale

215 N.W.2d 809, 298 Minn. 569, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1524

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 1, 1974

DocketNo. 44166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 N.W.2d 809 (State v. Thomale) 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. Thomale, 215 N.W.2d 809, 298 Minn. 569, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1524 (Mich. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant, who pleaded guilty to an information charging him with burglary, Minn. St. 609.58, subd. 2(3), and who was sentenced by the district court to the maximum term of imprisonment provided by statute (with credit for time spent in jail), appeals from a judgment of conviction, requesting that this court permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. The public defender has filed a brief on defendant’s behalf, notwithstanding the fact that defendant has indicated that he does not wish the public defender to represent him in his appeal. Defendant has not personally filed any brief, but we will consider the brief filed on defendant’s behalf rather than simply dismiss the appeal.

The brief refers to a number of rulings below which, it is contended, were erroneous, specifically, the municipal court’s alleged refusal to grant defendant a continuance of the preliminary hearing, the district court’s denial of his request for a copy of the transcript of his codefend-[570]*570ant’s trial, and the district court’s denial of his request to take a pretrial deposition of the complaining officer. Even if some of these rulings were erroneous, which does not appear on the record before us to be the case, that would not be ground for permitting defendant to withdraw his plea. The grounds for permitting withdrawal of guilty pleas are set forth in Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 162 N. W. 2d 698 (1968). There is no claim before us that any of the grounds set forth is present in this case.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant, who pleaded guilty to an information charging him with burglary, Minn. St. 609.58, subd. 2(3), and who was sentenced by the district court to the maximum term of imprisonment provided by statute (with credit for time spent in jail), appeals from a judgment of conviction, requesting that this court permit him to withdraw his guilty plea. The public defender has filed a brief on defendant’s behalf, notwithstanding the fact that defendant has indicated that he does not wish the public defender to represent him in his appeal. Defendant has not personally filed any brief, but we will consider the brief filed on defendant’s behalf rather than simply dismiss the appeal.

The brief refers to a number of rulings below which, it is contended, were erroneous, specifically, the municipal court’s alleged refusal to grant defendant a continuance of the preliminary hearing, the district court’s denial of his request for a copy of the transcript of his codefend-[570]*570ant’s trial, and the district court’s denial of his request to take a pretrial deposition of the complaining officer. Even if some of these rulings were erroneous, which does not appear on the record before us to be the case, that would not be ground for permitting defendant to withdraw his plea. The grounds for permitting withdrawal of guilty pleas are set forth in Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 162 N. W. 2d 698 (1968). There is no claim before us that any of the grounds set forth is present in this case.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 N.W.2d 809, 298 Minn. 569, 1974 Minn. LEXIS 1524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomale-minn-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack