State v. Ramstad
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Michael Lee RAMSTAD, Appellant
Opinion
OPINION FOLEY, Judge.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor DWI, was sentenced, and appeals from the sentence. There is no transcript of the evidence. The appellant was indigent at time of trial.
Appellant contends he should have been sentenced in accordance with certain policy guidelines on first offenses in the Tenth Judicial District. Appellant is in error. The statute, rather than any policy guideline, fixes the maximum punishment. The appellant’s sentence was within the statutory limits.
Our review of the sentence reflects that appellant, together with other conditions, was ordered “to pay the sum of $200.00 as costs of prosecution after payment of the fine and surcharge.” Such costs are permitted under Minn.Stat. § 631.48 (1982), but we caution the trial court before seeking to collect the costs of prosecution, to make an appropriate finding concerning appellant’s ability to pay.
See Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40, 46-47 , 94 S.Ct. 2116, 2121-2122 , 40 L.Ed.2d 642 (1974); and State v. Kottenbroch, 319 N.W.2d 465, 473 (N.D.1982).
Other claimed errors raised by appellant have been considered and determined to be without merit.
DECISION Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.