State v. Seifert
Cited by
- State of Minnesota v. Edin Gaspar Cruz Flores AKA Marcelino Rivera Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
- In the Matter of the Welfare of: N. B. M., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- , A22-0103 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
- State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Rodrigo Esparza, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Lehmann 331 N.W.2d 759
Opinion text
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.