Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

This week's featured Minnesota DWI/DUI case is (drum roll please):

State v. Omwega!!!
(Decided July 21, 2009)

There is good news and bad news in this case:

The Bad News:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled, in this published decision, that the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not require the State to prove all of the underlying facts of an implied-consent license revocation beyond the existence of the revocation itself in order to use the revocation to enhance a charge of driving while impaired.

The Good News:

Citing State v. Mellett, 642 N.W.2d 779, 789 (Minn.App. 2002) , the Court in Omwega reaffirmed that the defense may collaterally attack the use of a prior revocation if the prior revocation was unconstitutionally obtained. As stated by the Court:

"To properly raise the constitutionality of a prior license revocation and shift the burden of proof to the state, an appellant must (1) promptly notify the state that [his] constitutional rights were violated during a prior license revocation; and (2) produce evidence in support of that contention with respect to each challenged [revocation]."

When the State seeks to use a prior conviction to enhance the current charge, it is well established that the prior conviction can be collaterally attacked. See, State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901 at 904 (Minn. 1983)(a prior conviction cannot be used to enhance where the prior conviction was the product of an uncounseled guilty plea and there was no showing of a waiver of the right to counsel); State v. Stuart, 360 N.W.2d 463 (Minn.App. 1985)(a prior conviction cannot be used to enhance where there is no factual basis on the record to support the prior plea); State v. Brown, 346 N.W.2d 187 (Minn.App. 1984)(A prior conviction cannot be used to enhance where the defendant was not informed of the penalty for the prior offense).

It would make no sense whatsoever to hold that a prior conviction, where a Defendant has appeared in Court and answered the charge, is subject to collateral attack but a license revocation, which automatically occurs upon a test failure or test refusal, is immune from collateral challenge. In State v. Mellet, 642 N.W.2d 779 (Minn.App. 2002), the Court recognized that an implied consent license revocation is subject to collateral attack and it is good to see the Court of Appeals reaffirm the Mellet holding in THIS WEEK'S FEATURED MINNESOTA DWI CASE!!

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney