Minnesota Supreme Court, 1977

Korman v. State

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided December 9, 1977 · Per Curiam

262 N.W.2d 161; 1977 Minn. LEXIS 1280 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Robert Oliphant, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, William B. Randall, County Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

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 2025, 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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lawrence Hunt (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)
Dikken v. State (Minn. 2017)
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)
State v. Grosh (S.D. 1986)

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a petition for postconviction relief from a judgment of conviction of sodomy with a child, Minn. St. 609.293, subd. 4, a conviction which was based on a guilty plea by petitioner. On this appeal petitioner claims that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea on any of the following grounds: (1) That his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly entered because he was not aware of his rights and believed he would get treatment at the state hospital rather than be sent to prison, (2) that he was denied his right to counsel at his initial appearance in municipal court, and (3) that his confession was inadmissible because he was not informed when he was interrogated that he later would be charged with sodomy with a child instead of sodomy. We affirm.

There is no merit to petitioner’s contention that his plea was not voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly entered. The record supports the postconviction court’s finding that he was adequately advised of his rights and that any understanding he had that he would not be sent to prison was unjustified.

The other issues, relating to the deprivation of the right to counsel at the initial appearance in municipal court and the admissibility of his confession, are both issues waived by petitioner’s voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly entered guilty plea. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); McMann v. *162 Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970).

Affirmed.

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