Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Maas

July 1, 2003

STATE OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENT,
v.
BRIAN ADAM MAAS, APPELLANT.



Hennepin County District Court File No. 0264237

Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge, Harten, Judge, and Minge, Judge.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

The reference to "Minnesota Statutes 1998" in Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 20(3) (2002), does not limit the ten-year look-back provision of Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1(1) (2002).

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harten, Judge

Affirmed

OPINION

Appellant challenges his conviction of felony driving while impaired, arguing that a 1994 conviction was not a "prior impaired driving conviction" within the meaning of Minn. Stat. §á169A.03, subd. 20 (2002). Because the 1994 conviction was within ten years of the conviction being appealed, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Brian Maas was convicted of driving while impaired in 1994, 1998, and 2000. In 2002, he was found driving his boat with an alcohol concentration of 0.19. He was charged with first degree felony driving while impaired because he had three prior convictions within ten years. See Minn. Stat. §á169A.24, subd. 1(1) (2002) (one who violates the statute forbidding driving while impaired "within ten years of the first of three or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents" is guilty of first degree driving while impaired.)

Appellant moved to dismiss on the ground that one of his convictions occurred prior to 1998 and therefore was not a qualified prior impaired driving incident. The district court denied his motion, and he appeals.

ISSUE

Does the reference to "Minnesota Statutes 1998" in Minn. Stat. §á169A.03, subd.á20(3) (2002), limit the ten-year look-back provision of Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1(1) (2002)?

ANALYSIS

The application of a statute to the undisputed facts of a case involves a question of law, and the district court's decision is not binding on this court. O'Malley v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.