C1-83-1592 Precedential Affirmed Processed

State v. Ramstad

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Filed May 29, 1984 · 348 N.W.2d 391

Cited by

State v. Lopez-Solis 589 N.W.2d 290 Minn. 1999
State v. Martinson 460 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Feehan 412 N.W.2d 309 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Niemczyk 400 N.W.2d 401 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Anderson 378 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

319 N.W.2d 465 not in our corpus

Opinion text

OPINION FOLEY, Judge. The appellant was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor DWI, was sentenced, and appeals from the sentence. There is no transcript of the evidence. The appellant was indigent at time of trial. Appellant contends he should have been sentenced in accordance with certain policy guidelines on first offenses in the Tenth Judicial District. Appellant is in error. The statute, rather than any policy guideline, fixes the maximum punishment. The appellant’s sentence was within the statutory limits. Our review of the sentence reflects that appellant, together with other conditions, was ordered “to pay the sum of $200.00 as costs of prosecution after payment of the fine and surcharge.” Such costs are permitted under Minn.Stat. § 631.48 (1982), but we caution the trial court before seeking to collect the costs of prosecution, to make an appropriate finding concerning appellant’s ability to pay. See Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 46-47 , 94 S.Ct. 2116, 2121-2122 , 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974); and State v. Kottenbroch, 319 N.W.2d 465, 473 (N.D.1982). Other claimed errors raised by appellant have been considered and determined to be without merit. DECISION Affirmed.