Monday, April 16, 2018

Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Nordstrom (Decided April 16, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that virtually all out-of-state convictions for DWI can be used to "enhance" the current Minnesota DWI charge.

In Nordstrom, the Defendant was facing a Minnesota Felony DWI because at the time of his Minnesota DWI arrest, he had three prior DWIs within the past ten years.  One of the prior convictions was from Wisconsin and the Defendant argued the prior Wisconsin conviction could not be used to enhance the current offense because the Wisconsin conviction was based on evidence obtained from a warrantless blood draw in violation of his constitutional rights.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's claim stating:

"A criminal defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction to prevent it from serving as an enhancement, but "only in unique cases." State v. Schmidt, 712 N.W.2d 530, 538 n.4 (Minn. 2006). The district court determined that this was not a unique case, and we agree. Appellant entered a plea of "no contest" in Wisconsin to violating a state statute that provides: "[n]o person may drive or operate a motor vehicle while: (a) Under the influence of an intoxicant ... to a degree which renders him or her incapable of safely driving. ..." Wis. Stat. § 346.63, subd. 1(a). Wisconsin has a separate statutory provision prohibiting a person from driving while that person's alcohol concentration is above a prohibited alcohol concentration. See Wis. Stat. § 346.63, subd. 1(b) (2016) ("No person may drive or operate a motor vehicle while . . . [that] person has a prohibited alcohol concentration."). Accordingly, appellant's Wisconsin conviction did not require the state to prove that appellant had a prohibited alcohol concentration."

"Appellant argues that the results of his blood test were known at the time of his plea and were relevant to his conviction. Schmidt is again instructive. The Schmidt court considered evidence of a prior conviction, reasoning that "[w]hile [the uncounseled decision to submit to chemical testing] would preclude certain prosecutions, for example driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, prosecution could still proceed for the general offense of driving while under the influence, based on other evidence of impairment." 712 N.W.2d at 539 (citations omitted). This case presents a similar factual scenario. Even if the results of the blood test should have been suppressed in Wisconsin, other evidence of impairment sustained the conviction."

"We conclude that appellant's conviction in Wisconsin is not subject to collateral attack. The district court properly ruled that appellant's Wisconsin conviction was a "qualified prior impaired driving incident" that could be used to enhance the impaired-driving offense in Minnesota."

It appears from the Court's reasoning that if the Defendant had pled guilty to a .08% DWI charge, the result on appeal may have been different.  Wait and see!

Moral Of The Story:  Out-Of-State priors still count!


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 Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.


No comments:

Post a Comment