From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Seifert

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Sep 14, 1984
354 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 1984)

Opinion

No. C4-83-386.

September 14, 1984.

Appeal from the District Court, St. Louis County, Donald C. Odden, J.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Mollie G. Raskind, Deputy Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Alan L. Mitchell, St. Louis County Atty., Duluth, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of procuring a controlled substance by fraud, Minn.Stat. § 152.09, subd. 2(1) (1982). The trial court sentenced defendant to an executed prison term of 1 year and 1 day. The appeal brief filed by the State Public Defender argues that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Defendant's pro se supplementary brief argues that the Public Defender who represented him at trial failed to represent him effectively. There is no merit to either contention. The state's evidence established that defendant went from Minneapolis to Duluth and, through intentional material misstatements and omissions of fact, obtained four prescriptions for Dilaudid, a class 2 narcotic, as well as other drugs, from four different doctors in a 2-day period. Furthermore, the record on appeal does not mandate the conclusion that defendant's trial counsel failed to represent him effectively. State v. Lehmann, 331 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1983).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Seifert

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Sep 14, 1984
354 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 1984)
Case details for

State v. Seifert

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Craig Thomas SEIFERT, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Sep 14, 1984

Citations

354 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. 1984)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Wilbur

United States v. Bass, 490 F.2d 846, 857 (5th Cir. 1974); see also id. at 857 n. 11 ("[t]he statute…

State v. Swenson

Three cases decided under the predecessor statutes are instructive on claims of insufficient evidence. In…