Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schmidt, 712 N.W.2d 530.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy Dustin Johannes Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting “a conviction based on an uncounseled plea can be .
Frank Joseph Peach v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
[unless] strong public policy interests of the forum state provide sufficient reason to override the general rule of recognition.” 539 (Minn. 2006) (concluding that “Minnesota’s interest in preserving the .
State of Minnesota v. Marshaun Deeandre Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“In order for an out -of-state conviction or license revoca tion to be qualified, the statute or ordinance that the conviction [or license revocation] was based on must be in conformity with one of the enumerated Minnesota impaired driving-related statutes.” (quot ation omitted ).
Stewart Edward Underhill v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Underhill cites the supreme court’s and this court’s rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Christian Anthony Paul Ruth Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But such challenges are permitted for constitutional violations that “rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect.” -34 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We allow collateral attacks on prior convictions in only “unique cases.” State v. Schmidt , n.4 (Minn. 2006) (quota tion omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Yemane Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But, even though advising a defendant that refusing a warrantless blood test is a crime now precludes prosecution f or driving with a particular alcohol concentration, “prosecution [may] still proceed for the general offense of driving while under the influence, based on other evidence of impairment.”
State of Minnesota v. Lonny Duane Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Whether a prior conviction statutorily qualifies as a prior impaired-driving conviction for purposes of enhancement is a “legal question.” (concluding that South Dakot a convictions could be used for enhancement purposes).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Edward Nordstrom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A criminal defendant may co llaterally attack a prior conviction to prevent it from serving as an enhancement, but “only in unique cases.” n.4 (Minn. 2006).
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
David John Anderson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 878 N.W.2d 926 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that prior convictions may be collaterally attacked 7 “only in unique cases” (quotation omitted)); Warren, d at 798 (holding that the violation of a defendant’s right to counsel is a “pivotal constitutional right” that may justify a
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Wayne Hexom Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Wayne Hexom Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael McGowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael McGowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But, even though Wisconsin does not provide such a right, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed and rejected a concerning a South Dakota law.
State of Minnesota v. Paul Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed an argument similar to the one made by appellant.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Robert Forster Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Robert Forster Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.4 (Minn. 2006) (“In emphasizing the importance of the finality of judgments, we have every blood draw conducted with consent in a police station will be reasonable.
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
-36 (Minn. 2006) (applying the most significant relationship approach to a choice-of-law issue regarding the effect of a judgment in another state); see also Ehredt v. DeHavilland Aircraft Co., 705 P.2d 446, 452-53 (Alaska 1985) (applying the most significant relationship test to determine which state's law should
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
allows a pri- or foreign conviction that was based on a chemical test decision made without the limited right to counsel to be used to enhance a later Minnesota DWI offense, we conclude that the rationale of Schmidt is applicable when the underlying enhancement offense was civil in nature, and we aff
Blume Law Firm PC v. Pierce 741 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Blume Law Firm PC v. Pierce 741 N.W.2d 921 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Schuster 744 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 2006
State v. Schuster 744 N.W.2d 374 Minn. 2006
ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the State of Minnesota for further review be, and the same is, granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeals filed January 31, 2006