Cited by

(noting “a conviction based on an uncounseled plea can be .

[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 .

“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 ).

Underhill cites the supreme court’s and this court’s rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

But such challenges are permitted for constitutional violations that “rise to the level of a jurisdictional defect.” -34 (Minn. 2006).

We allow collateral attacks on prior convictions in only “unique cases.” State v. Schmidt , n.4 (Minn. 2006) (quota tion omitted).

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.”

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).

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).

(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

But, even though Wisconsin does not provide such a right, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed and rejected a concerning a South Dakota law.

But, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed an argument similar to the one made by appellant.

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.

-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

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

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