Opinion ID: 2103835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: william j. spooner,

Text: being first duly sworn by the court to testify, testified as follows: Examination by Mr. Plattner: Q. Mr. Spooner, you were Donald Minton's attorney when he was charged pursuant to the crime of burglary, M.S.A. 609.58, Subd. 2, Subs. 3?
Q. And, do you remember a conversation which took place in the presence of the defendant, myself, out of the hearing of the District Court, whereby the defendant wanted to plead guilty to the crime of burglary? A. I do. Q. And, was that at the defendant's insistence that this happened? A. Yes. Q. And, this is with your knowledge and approval? A. And, advice, yes. Q. Can you recall the circumstances, why he wanted to plead guilty to the crime of theft rather than the crime of burglary, do you remember that? A. Not specifically, just some vague feeling he had that he was not guilty of burglary. THE COURT: But, he did acknowledge the fact that he was guilty of theft? MR. SPOONER: That he was guilty of theft. Q. (By Mr. Plattner) And, he asked the State of Minnesota to change the crime to theft, which carried the same penalty, zero to five years, [rather] than to the crime of burglary which was originally charged? A. There may be some dispute there in that as you recall on preliminary hearingwould you ask me that question again? Q. Do you remember himStrike that. A. If you are asking me what is in that record, that transcript is correct. I recall that. Q. And, he knew each term was zero to five years, for the burglary or for the theft, do you remember? If you don't, it is not that important. A. I don't specifically recall. I would tell the court this though; the property taken was taken from a garage, not attached, but very adjacent to a dwelling house wherein the people resided. We did have some conversation relative to whether or not that appurtenant structure would be considered part of the dwelling and therefore increase the sentence to ten years. Now, it may be that he was under the impression that he did enter under those circumstances a dwelling. I explained to him, I am sure, that that was an open question and there was a possibility that it could be ten years. So, he may not have readily assumed that the sentence for each charge was five years. THE COURT: At any rate, with regardhe understood that the information was being amended to allege facts constituting theft, punishable by zero to five years. MR. SPOONER: That's right. MR. WEBER [defendant's attorney]: If I may inquire for just a minute, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Examination by Mr. Weber: Q. Mr. Spooner, was there any discussion about a misdemeanor? Did he have any feeling that this was possibly a charge of a misdemeanor? A. He at all times wanted me to inquire of the County Attorney whether or not he would reduce this charge to a misdemeanor. I did so on several occasions, ask the County [Attorney] to do so and he refused on all occasions and all my conversations were conveyed to the defendant and he was aware, having told him several times, that this was not a misdemeanor; that was the thing he was seeking of me more than anything else to do, to get me to reduce this thing to a misdemeanor and I am sure he knew. MR. PLATTNER: I think he has got 28 convictions, so he is not exactly a newcomer. He realized at the time the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony and I remember Mr. Spooner did ask me three or four times whether I would consent to do this and I told him absolutely no, in view of the defendant's long record. [12]