The Minnesota Case of The Week is State v. Blumke (Decided October 2, 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that if the law changes before an appeal is final, the Defendant is entitled to the benefit of the change.
In Blumke, the Defendant was arrested in June 2014 for Felony DWI and at the time of his arrest, Defendant was read the Minnesota Implied Consent advisory which informed him that Minnesota law required him to submit to a chemical test to determine if he was under the influence of alcohol and that refusing such a test was a crime. Appellant agreed to a blood test, which revealed an alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
The Defendant moved to suppress the blood test and dismiss the Complaint but the motion was denied by the district court. In June 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Minnesota's test-refusal statute as it applies to breath tests but ruled that the search -incident-to-arrest exception and implied consent did not justify a warrantless blood test. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2184-86 (2016).
Therefore, under Birchfield, the MInnesota Implied Consent Advisory was misleading and violated due process regarding blood tests because a person has a constitutional right to require the state to obtain a search warrant for blood.
On Appeal, Blumke argued the district court erred by declining to apply Birchfield's holding to the facts of his case and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, noting:
"We conclude that the district court erred by declining to consider appellant's case in light of Birchfield, which was released before appellant's conviction became final. A judgment of conviction is final when direct appeals are exhausted or the time for filing a direct appeal has expired. State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886, 893-94 (Minn. 2006); see also Hutchinson v. State, 679 N.W.2d 160, 162 (Minn. 2004) (noting that a case is final when "a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or finally denied"). But an appeal "suspends a judgment and deprives it of its finality," which is essential in criminal cases "because to apply a new rule [of law] to the case in which it was announced but to not apply it to other cases that were then on direct appeal would be to treat similarly situated criminal defendants differently." State v. Lewis, 656 N.W.2d 535, 537-38 (Minn. 2003) (quotation and citation omitted). Birchfield'was announced after appellant's adjudication of guilt, but before sentencing. Appellant's case is now pending on direct review. Appellant's judgment of conviction is not yet final, Losh, 721 N.W.2d at 893-94, and he is entitled to application of the rule of law articulated in Birchfield."
Moral Of The Story: It ain't over till it's over!
The Defendant moved to suppress the blood test and dismiss the Complaint but the motion was denied by the district court. In June 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Minnesota's test-refusal statute as it applies to breath tests but ruled that the search -incident-to-arrest exception and implied consent did not justify a warrantless blood test. Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2184-86 (2016).
Therefore, under Birchfield, the MInnesota Implied Consent Advisory was misleading and violated due process regarding blood tests because a person has a constitutional right to require the state to obtain a search warrant for blood.
On Appeal, Blumke argued the district court erred by declining to apply Birchfield's holding to the facts of his case and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, noting:
"We conclude that the district court erred by declining to consider appellant's case in light of Birchfield, which was released before appellant's conviction became final. A judgment of conviction is final when direct appeals are exhausted or the time for filing a direct appeal has expired. State v. Losh, 721 N.W.2d 886, 893-94 (Minn. 2006); see also Hutchinson v. State, 679 N.W.2d 160, 162 (Minn. 2004) (noting that a case is final when "a judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari elapsed or finally denied"). But an appeal "suspends a judgment and deprives it of its finality," which is essential in criminal cases "because to apply a new rule [of law] to the case in which it was announced but to not apply it to other cases that were then on direct appeal would be to treat similarly situated criminal defendants differently." State v. Lewis, 656 N.W.2d 535, 537-38 (Minn. 2003) (quotation and citation omitted). Birchfield'was announced after appellant's adjudication of guilt, but before sentencing. Appellant's case is now pending on direct review. Appellant's judgment of conviction is not yet final, Losh, 721 N.W.2d at 893-94, and he is entitled to application of the rule of law articulated in Birchfield."
Moral Of The Story: It ain't over till it's over!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment