Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1985

State, City of Minneapolis v. Edwards

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Decided January 15, 1985 · No. C2-84-932 · Sedgwick

361 N.W.2d 90; 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3736 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Minnesota Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Robert Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty., James H. Tumulty, Asst. Mpls. City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent., Jerod H. Peterson, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 2003, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Hawanchak (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

Appellant, Ronald Edwards, appeals his conviction by jury of obstructing legal process, a misdemeanor. We reverse and remand.

Appellant appeared pro se. There is no record of his waiver of counsel.

ISSUE

Was defendant denied a fair trial where he was unrepresented and there is no record of waiver of counsel?

ANALYSIS

The trial court, relying on Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 99 S.Ct. 1158, 59 L.Ed.2d 383 (1979), held that even though Edwards did not effectively waive his right to counsel, his constitutional rights were *91not violated because incarceration was not imposed upon his conviction.

The trial court’s reliance on Scott is misplaced because that case dealt with a defendant’s right to counsel, rather than the validity of a defendant’s conviction in the absence of a record of waiver of counsel, which is at issue here.

Minn.R.Crim.P. 5.02, subd. 2, provides that,

Unless the defendant charged with a misdemeanor punishable upon conviction by incarceration voluntarily waives counsel in writing or on the record, the court shall appoint counsel for him if he appears without counsel * * *.

(Emphasis added.)

The rule further provides that the court shall not accept the waiver unless the court is satisfied that it is voluntary and has been made by the defendant' with full knowledge and understanding of his rights. Those rights requiring full understanding before a plea is entered in a misdemeanor case are specified in Minn.R.Crim.P. 15.02.

DECISION

Since there is no record, it is impossible to determine on review that such waiver was knowing and intelligent. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.