Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A09-2151

Court of Appeals

Page, J. Dissenting, Gildea, C.J., and Dietzen, J. Dissenting, Anderson, G. Barry, J.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Victor Martinez-Mendoza, Appellant. ________________________ Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Benjamin J. Butler, Assistant State Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota, for appellant. ________________________ SYLLABUS 1. 2. Jeopardy attaches to a criminal defendant, at the latest, upon conviction. Appellant was convicted when the district court accepted his plea and Filed: August 31, 2011 Office of Appellate Courts

adjudicated him guilty on the record after he entered his plea to count two of the complaint.

1

3.

Rule 28.04 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure precludes an

appeal of a pretrial order after jeopardy attaches. 4. Because double jeopardy bars retrial of appellant after his conviction, the

State had no right to appeal from the district court's denial of its motion to withdraw from the plea agreement or, in the alternative, to amend the complaint. 5. The State's argument that it should be allowed to recharge appellant with

count one of the complaint, even though appellant has been convicted of an offense based on the same conduct, is premature. Reversed. OPINION PAGE, Justice. On August 24, 2009, appellant Victor Martinez-Mendoza was charged by complaint with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct [count one] in violation of Minn. Stat.

Download A09-2151,State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Victor Martinez-Mendoza, Appellant.

Minnesota Law