Ebert v. State
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 1987, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Dockin v. State (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
- State v. Pilla (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- State v. Eling (Minn. 1984)
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
In 1974 petitioner entered a guilty plea in county court to a charge of D.W.I. and was sentenced. Then in 1977, nearly 3½ years later, petitioner filed a petition in district court pursuant to Minn.Stat. ch. 590 seeking relief from that conviction. After a hearing, the district court denied relief. We affirm. 1
Although a tape recording was apparently made of the proceedings surrounding petitioner’s entry of her plea in 1974, in the 3V2-year interval between the entry of the plea and the filing of the petition for postconviction relief the tape recording was lost or misplaced. As a result, an evidentia-ry hearing was required to try to determine exactly what happened at the time the plea was entered. Evidence at this hearing was conflicting on the issue of whether petitioner’s rights had been adequately explained to petitioner, but the postconviction court concluded that the affidavit of the judge who accepted petitioner’s plea and petitioner’s “fuzzy” recollection of what happened “belied” her claim that she made her plea without knowledge of all her rights. The record adduced at the postconviction hearing also revealed that there was a factual basis for petitioner’s plea at the time she entered it.
Affirmed.
. The state, by motion, sought an order dismissing petitioner’s appeal to this court on the ground that petitioner failed to seek permission to appeal. We recognize the argument that one denied postconviction relief from a misdemeanor conviction should be required to seek permission to appeal in order to avoid circumvention of the requirement of permission for a direct appeal from the conviction itself. See Minn.Stat. § 487.39, subd. 2 (1978); Rule 29.01, subd. 2(1), Minn.R.Crim.P. However, we excused the petitioner’s failure to seek permission in this case because the postconviction statute, Minn.Stat. ch. 590 (1978), does not make that requirement clear.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.