State v. L.K

18 Citing cases

  1. State v. P.A.D

    436 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that when defendant pleaded guilty, district court stayed imposition of sentence, and conviction was vacated and dismissed, defendant was not entitled to expungement under section 299C.11

    This does not mean, however, that trial courts are precluded from ordering that records and materials controlled by the other two branches of government be returned or sealed, if doing so is necessary or conducive to fashioning a meaningful remedy. See C.A., 304 N.W.2d at 359-60; State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). Trial courts, proceeding with appropriate caution and deference to the legislative and executive branches, may issue an order that effectively protects the petitioner from the consequences of the release of information pertaining to the petitioner's arrest, prosecution, incarceration, or release.

  2. State v. M.B.M

    518 N.W.2d 880 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that a dismissal of a complaint after pleading guilty is not a determination in favor of the accused

    In re R.L.F., 256 N.W.2d 803, 805 (Minn. 1977); State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn.App. 1984). Though chapter 299C is devoted to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Minn.Stat. § 299C.11 authorizes the court to order relief from the BCA, the sheriff, the police, the probation department, the clerk of the district court, and the county attorney's office.

  3. State v. P. J. M

    No. A10-56 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2010)

    Aug. 5, 1997). P.J.M.'s reliance on J.R.A., 714 N.W.2d at 728, State v. K.M.M., 721 N.W.2d 330 (Minn. App. 2006), and State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. App. 1984), to support his argument that he is statutorily entitled to expungement is based on his assertion that the disorderly conduct conviction did not arise out of the same incident as the assault charges. Because the charges were all based on the same incident, the cases do not support P.J.M.'s argument.

  4. State v. Henkensiefken

    No. A04-1350 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2005)

    Id. at 296. Henkensiefken relies on State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305 (Minn. App. 1984), to argue that the vacation of his plea and the dismissal of the charges against him are a determination in his favor. But in L.K., the defendant did not enter a plea and did not admit guilt.

  5. In re Quinn

    503 N.W.2d 480 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    Such a result constitutes a determination in Quinn's favor for purposes of expungement. See, e.g., State v. C.A., 304 N.W.2d 353, 357 n. 3 (Minn. 1981) (remand of jury conviction for consensual sodomy that was not followed by a retrial constituted a determination in defendant's favor); State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305, 307-08 (Minn.App. 1984) (trial court's dismissal of misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct following a continuance for one year without entry of a plea constituted a determination "in favor of the arrested person"). In Minnesota, "determination of all pending criminal proceedings in favor of the arrested person" means determination in any way except conviction or admission of guilt.

  6. V.C. v. Casady

    262 Neb. 714 (Neb. 2001)   Cited 19 times

    Police reports summarize the facts surrounding an event and constitute a necessary log of police activity. See State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305 (Minn.App. 1984). The hallmark of our system of government calls for the preservation of accurate official records rather than suppression of information.

  7. Dakota Cnty. v. N. J. H. D.

    A13-1755 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 27, 2014)

    In concluding that the defendant in C.P.H. was entitled to expungement, this court stated that "[t]he critical distinction in our analysis of whether the resolution was in favor of the petitioner turns on whether there has been an admission or a finding of guilt." Id. at 703; see also State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305, 306-08 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that where a defendant's misdemeanor charges have been continued for one year without a guilty plea and subsequently dismissed, the dismissal is a determination in the defendant's favor for expungement purposes under section 299C.11). Nonetheless, although an adult offender whose case was continued for dismissal may be entitled to expungement of executive branch records under chapter 609A and 299C.11, subd. 1, an adult offender situated similarly to appellant would not be entitled to the expungement of his or her executive-branch records.

  8. In re A.S.K.

    A12-0048 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2012)

    1977), this court has previously concluded that police reports are not "subject to expungement" under section 299C.11 because "they merely summarize the facts surrounding an event and constitute a necessary log of police activity." State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn. App. 1994). The offense/incident report in this case is a "necessary log of police activity" and therefore is not subject to expungement under section 299C.11.

  9. State v. R. D. S

    No. A10-1610 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 3, 2011)

    The two third-degree criminal sexual conduct charges arising from the 1995 case against R.D.S. were dismissed. This court has held that when the defendant did not plead or admit guilt and the charge against him was not prosecuted, innocence was presumed and the lower court's dismissal of the charge amounted to a determination in his favor. State v. L.K., 359 N.W.2d 305, 307-08 (Minn. App. 1984). R.D.S. did not plead or admit guilt to the two charges of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, nor were the charges against him prosecuted.

  10. State v. S. R. W

    No. A10-188 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2010)

    " In State v. L.K., we determined that because the defendant did not plead or admit guilt and the charge against him was not prosecuted, innocence was presumed and dismissal of the charge amounted to "a determination in his favor." 359 N.W.2d 305, 307-08 (Minn. App. 1984). Here, the state dismissed the charges against appellant, resolving the proceedings in his favor.