Title: State v. Mathiasen

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

141 N.W.2d 805 (1966) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James A. MATHIASEN, Appellant. No. 39800. Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 25, 1966. *807 J. J. Larson, Sauk Centre, for appellant. Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., Gerard W. Snell, Sol. Gen., Linus J. Hammond, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Roger Nierengarten, County Atty., St. Cloud, for respondent. THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction based upon defendant's plea of guilty to an information charging him with the violation of Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a) (L.1963, c. 753, § 609.52, subd. 2[3][a]). This statute provides: Following conviction, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 3(2, 4) (L. 1963, c. 753, § 609.52, subd. 3[2, 4]), which provides: The information under which defendant was convicted set forth that within a 6-month period ending May 9, 1964, defendant had obtained with false representations merchandise and money of the aggregate value of more than $100 belonging to 12 named persons through the issuance of 13 bank checks (described by copies), each of which defendant knew to be false in that he well knew that he was not entitled to draw upon the drawee banks for the sums specified therein and was not entitled thereby to order the payment of the sums of money specified therein; and which false representations were made with intent to and did defraud the payees in such checks contrary to § 609.52, subd. 2(3) (a), said acts constituting theft. At the time of his plea of guilty, defendant was represented by counsel and was questioned as follows: The court then ordered a presentence investigation. After the report of the investigation had been filed, the following proceedings took place on July 7, 1964, when defendant appeared for sentencing: Thereafter, on December 15, 1964, defendant took the present appeal to this court, and on February 5, 1965, this court appointed as defendant's counsel Mr. J. J. Larson, an attorney of Sauk Centre. Defendant again urges that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional and that he was inadequately represented by counsel in the district court proceedings. He also urges that the information was defective because it charged him with more than one offense and further that under Minn.St. 609.15[3] (L.1963, c. 753, § 609.15) the maximum sentence that could have been imposed upon him for the misdemeanors described therein could not exceed one year. 1. We are of the opinion that § 609.52, subd. 3, under which defendant was sentenced, and the proceedings thereunder were valid in all respects. By its enactment of this statute the legislature has declared in substance that a person cashing a series of checks, aggregating in excess of $100 within a 6-month period, without sufficient funds on deposit to cover them respectively, is guilty of a felony. In so doing it has exercised its unquestioned authority to declare which acts or what course of conduct shall be deemed inimical to the public welfare so as to constitute a crime and to establish the appropriate punishment therefor. State v. Sobelman, 199 Minn. 232, 271 N.W. 484; State v. Cantrell, 220 Minn. 13, 18 N.W.2d 681. The responsibility of the courts with respect to such legislative authority is merely to determine whether in its exercise the legislature has denied any citizen any state or Federal constitutional right. State v. Sobelman, supra; State v. Cantrell, supra; State v. Northwest Poultry & Egg Co., 203 Minn. 438, 281 N.W. 753; State v. Suess, 236 Minn. 174, 52 N.W.2d 409. 2. Illustrative of this judicial function with respect to such legislative authority are decisions to the effect that it is within the legislative province to declare that certain acts may constitute or be parts of different offenses, State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247, 15 N.W.2d 554, 162 A.L.R. 477; State v. Dineen, 10 Minn. 325 (407); that the same acts may be offenses under different statutes, State v. Bolsinger, 221 Minn. 154, 21 N.W.2d 480; that it is not a defense to prosecution under one statute that an accused might have been prosecuted under another, State v. Seeling, 126 Minn. 386, 148 N.W. 458; that when a legislative act has for its purpose the prohibition of an undesirable form of conduct rather than a specific act, the definition by its very nature must be broad, State v. Eich, 204 Minn. 134, 282 N.W. 810; State v. Suess, supra; and that if it can be determined with reasonable certainty what conduct is subject to legislative disapproval, the statute defining the prohibited conduct will not be held unconstitutional on the ground of indefiniteness. State v. McCorvey, 262 Minn. 361, 114 N.W.2d 703. 3. Nor do we find that the information under which defendant was convicted was defective for duplicity. Therein there was described in detail the various checks, aggregating in excess of $100, cashed by defendant within a 6-month period without sufficient funds on deposit to cover *811 any of them, which course of conduct the legislature has declared constitutes a felony. Certainly defendant must have understood from this information the charge made against him and the evidence he would have to present if he were to establish his innocence with respect thereto. No other method of describing the course of conduct constituting violation of § 609.52, subd. 2, punishable under subd. 3, could have been followed. In considering the question of duplicity, this court has stated in State v. Gopher Tire & Rubber Co., 146 Minn. 52, 58, 177 N.W. 937, 939: See, also, State ex rel. Weich v. City of Red Wing, 175 Minn. 222, 220 N.W. 611. 4. Defendant contends finally that under § 609.15, subd. 2, the court could not sentence him in excess of 1 year. This statute provides that where a single information charges an accused with a number of misdemeanors and he is convicted thereunder, his total term of imprisonment shall not exceed 1 year. Here the information, while listing a series of misdemeanors committed by defendant, did not charge him with the commission of any misdemeanor, but rather charged him with the felony which arose from his commission of the sum total of the offenses described. From this it is clear that the provisions of § 609.15, subd. 2, would have no application. 5. Defendant's claim that he was inadequately represented by counsel arises from the fact that his counsel did not interpose any defense with respect to the validity of § 609.52, subd. 3; or any defense with respect to duplicity in the information; and that he did not invoke the limitation-of-sentence provisions of § 609.15, subd. 2, as above set forth. Our conclusion that such defenses would have been without merit is indicative that defendant's counsel was not derelict in his duty because he did not assert such defenses during the district court proceedings. Affirmed. [1] This covers the common-law offense of obtaining money by false pretenses and supersedes Minn.St. 622.01 and 622.03. [2] This provision was inserted to meet the objection that in eliminating the Habitual Offender Act for misdemeanors (formerly Minn.St.1961, § 617.75; see, Minn.St. 609.155 [L.1963, c. 753, § 609.155]), the new criminal code had not adequately provided against habitual bad-check writers who repeatedly wrote bad checks for less than $100. For discussion generally, see Pirsig, Proposed Revision of the Minnesota Criminal Code, 47 Minn.L.Rev. 417, 432. [3] Minn.St. 609.15, subd. 2, provides: "If the court specifies that the sentence shall run consecutively, the total of the terms of imprisonment imposed, other than a term of imprisonment for life, shall not exceed 40 years. If all of the sentences are for misdemeanors the total of the terms of imprisonment shall not exceed one year; if for gross misdemeanors the total of such terms shall not exceed three years."