Case Title: State v. Mitchell

Citation: 152 N.W.2d 784

Docket Number: 40405

State: minnesota

Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Date: 1967-08-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
152 N.W.2d 784 (1967) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Robert MITCHELL, Appellant. No. 40405. Supreme Court of Minnesota. August 25, 1967. *785 C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Ronald L. Haskvitz, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant. Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., David C. Weinberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gerard W. Snell, Act. Sol. Gen., St. Paul, L. W. Rulien, County Atty., Thief River Falls, for respondent. MURPHY, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction pursuant to a plea of guilty to the charge of theft under the so-called "Bunching of Checks" statutory provision, Minn.St. 609.52, subds. 2(3) (a) and 3(4). The information lists the checks involved, allegedly a total of $167.80 for the period from September 27, 1965, to and including October 15, 1965. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his plea of guilty; that the plea was induced by promises; and that defense counsel failed to inform defendant of his constitutional rights. The asserted errors should be viewed in light of the proceedings before the trial court as they appear from the transcript of the record, which reads as follows: There is no issue as to defendant's guilt since he admitted that he had no money in the bank to meet the checks written by him. See, State v. Marris, Minn., 152 N.W.2d 728, filed August 4, 1967. The court referred the case for presentence investigation and report, and on January 3, 1966, defendant appeared in court with counsel and was sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 5 years. The execution of the sentence was stayed and he was placed on probation under the usual probation conditions. It appears that on February 9, 1966, defendant was arrested by Missouri police authorities, after which he waived extradition and was returned to Minnesota. On March 17, 1966, defendant appeared in district court, at which time the stay of execution was revoked and warrant of commitment issued. Defendant seems to claim that the proceedings were infected with error because it is claimed the plea was induced by promises made to him. It appears that at the time the plea was entered there was also a charge against defendant for bigamy, which was later dismissed. In connection with this circumstance, the court said to defendant: From our examination of the file and record, we are satisfied that it contains nothing to support defendant's claim that the plea was induced by promises, nor is there anything in the record which would indicate incompetency of counsel. On the contrary, the record establishes that defendant's rights were fully protected. Affirmed.