State v. Mathiasen
| Decision Date | 25 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39800,39800 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. James A. MATHIASEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In its enactment of Minn.St. 609.52 (L.1963, c. 753, § 609.52), which declares in substance that a person cashing a series of checks aggregating in excess of $100 within a 6-month period, with intent to defraud and knowing that he is not entitled to draw upon the respective drawees therein, is guilty of a felony, legislature exercised its constitutional authority to declare which acts or what course of conduct shall be deemed inimical to the public walfare so as to constitute a felony; and to establish appropriate punishment therefor.
Responsibility of courts with respect to such legislative authority is merely to determine whether in its exercise the legislature denied any citizen any state or Federal constitutional right.
2. Ordinarily it is within the legislative province to declare that certain acts may constitute or be parts of different offenses; that the same acts may be offenses under different statutes; or that it is not a defense to prosecution under one statute that the accused might have been prosecuted under another. In a legislative act prohibiting an undesirable form of conduct rather than a specific act, the definition of the conduct prohibited by its nature must be broad so that if it can be determined from the language used the conduct which is subject to legislative disapproval, the statute defining it will not be held unconstitutional for indefiniteness.
3. Information under which defendant was convicted, which set forth copies of various checks aggregating in excess of $100 cashed by defendant within a 6-month period and which set forth that defendant was without sufficient funds on deposit to cover any of them and intended to defraud the payees named therein; and which accused him of the commission of a felony because of such conduct, Held not invalid for duplicity.
4. Where information listed a series of acts committed by defendant, each of which was a misdemeanor, but did not charge him with commission of any misdemeanor, but rather charged him with the commission of a felony because of his commission of the sum total of the misdemeanors described, Held provisions of Minn.St. 609.15, subd. 2 (L.1963, c. 753, § 609.15, subd. 2), which provide that the aggregate sentence of defendant accused of a number of misdemeanors shall not exceed 1 year, would not be applicable.
5. Where defendant's claim that he was inadequately represented by counsel is based on fact that at his trial his counsel did not interpose certain defenses; and where such defenses would have been without merit, Held such facts would not constitute support for defendant's claim.
J. J. Larson, Sauk Centre, for appellant.
Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., Gerard W. Snell, Sol. Gen., Linus J. Hammond, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Roger Nierengarten, County Atty., St. Cloud, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction based upon defendant's plea of guilty to an information charging him with the violation of Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a) (L.1963, c. 753, § 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a)). This statute provides:
'Whoever does any of the following commits theft and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 3:
'(a) Obtains for himself * * * the possession * * * or title to property of a third person by intentionally deceiving him with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. 'False representation' includes without limitation:
'(a) The issuance of a check, draft, or order for the payment of money or the delivery of property knowing that he is not entitled to draw upon the drawee therefor or to order the payment or delivery thereof.' 1
Following conviction, defendant was sentenced in accordance with the provisions of Minn.St. 609.52, subd. 3(2, 4) (L. 1963, c. 753, § 609.52, subd. 3(2, 4)), which provides:
'Whoever commits theft may be sentenced as follows:
'(2) To imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, if the value of the property or services is more than $100 but not more than $2,500; or
'(4) In all other cases where the value of the property or services is $100 or less, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $100, provided, however, in any prosecution under clause (3)(a) of subdivision 2 hereunder the value of the money or property received by the defendant in violation thereof within any six month period may be aggregated and the defendant charged accordingly in applying the provisions of this subdivision.' 2
The information under which defendant was convicted set forth that within a 6-month period ending May 9, 1964, defendant had obtained with false representations merchandise and money of the aggregate value of more than $100 belonging to 12 named persons through the issuance of 13 bank checks (described by copies), each of which defendant knew to be false in that he well knew that he was not entitled to draw upon the drawee banks for the sums specified therein and was not entitled thereby to order the payment of the sums of money specified therein; and which false representations were made with intent to and did defraud the payees in such checks contrary to § 609.52, subd. 2(3)(a), said acts constituting theft.
At the time of his plea of guilty, defendant was represented by counsel and was questioned as follows:
The court then ordered a presentence investigation. After the report of the investigation had been filed, the following proceedings took place on July 7, 1964, when defendant appeared for sentencing:
'MR. JOHNSON (assistant county attorney): The State will abide by the recommendations of the pre-sentence investigation officer.
'THE COURT: The following judgment and sentence will be entered:
'SENTENCE
'It is the judgment and sentence of the Court that defendant, James A. Mathiasen, having been duly convicted of a violation of Section 609.52, Subdivision 2(3)(a), be committed to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for the State of Minnesota, for imprisonment until duly released by operation of law or act of the proper authority, but not to exceed a period of five (5) years, this sentence being authorized by Section 609.52, Subdivision 3(2), the Court finding that the value of the property was more than $100.00 but not more than $2500.00.
'IMPRESSIONS OF THE COURT
'It is the Court's impression that the length of time that the defendant should serve, within the limits authorized by law, be left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Corrections.'
Thereafter, on December 15, 1964, defendant took the present appeal to this court, and on February 5, 1965, this court appointed as defenda...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kalvig
...and the prosecutor may proceed under whichever law or statute he sees fit.' In the more recent decision of State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372, 378, 141 N.W.2d 805, 810 (1966), we said: '* * * (I)t is within the legislative province to declare that certain acts may constitute or be parts of d......
-
Coolen v. State, 41670
...merit does not constitute inadequate representation of counsel. See, Adler v. State, Supra; State v. Roberts, Supra; State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372, 141 N.W.2d 805. A careful consideration of the record as a whole discloses that defendant entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second ......
-
State ex rel Oney v. Tahash
...habeas corpus. Affirmed. 1 Minn.St. 609.52, subds. 2(3)(a) and 3(2, 4). The validity of this statute was sustained in State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372, 141 N.W.2d 805. See, also, State v. Harris, Minn., 152 N.W.2d 728, filed August 4, 1967.2 The checks were in the amounts of $38, $39, and ......
-
State v. Miner
...to the public welfare so as to constitute a crime and to establish the appropriate punishment therefor. State v. Mathiasen, 273 Minn. 372, 378, 141 N.W.2d 805, 810 (1966). Minn.Stat. § 97A.037 furthers the important governmental interest in regulating the taking of wild animals and protecti......