Minnesota Lawyer
Appellant challenged his conviction of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree aggravated robbery, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, that the District Court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for postconviction investigative services and in admitting five unspecified felony convictions as impeachment evidence, and that appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel at the sentencing hearing was not knowing and voluntary. The Court of Appeals held that appellant did not show that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying investigative services or in admitting unspecified felony convictions, and thus affirmed appellant’s conviction. But, it held that the record did not show that appellant’s waiver of his right to counsel at the sentencing hearing was knowing and intelligent, and thus reversed his sentence and remanded for a sentencing hearing at which appellant will either be represented by counsel or will waive his right to counsel on the record and in accord with Minn. R. Crim. P. 5.04. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
A12-0286 State v. Miller (Ramsey County)
