State v. Retzlaff
807 N.W.2d 437
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Retzlaff was previously convicted in 2000 of criminal vehicular operation for substantially injuring another while driving impaired.
- In August 2009, Retzlaff was stopped for DWI with a breath alcohol concentration of 0.19 and his license canceled.
- The State charged two counts of DWI as first-degree offenses based on the 2000 conviction for criminal vehicular operation.
- The enhancement statute, 169A.24, was amended in 2006 and restructured in 2007, changing how prior offenses are numbered.
- Retzlaff argued the 2000 conviction could not enhance because the predicate offense was renamed under the new numbering and the amendment referred to a different numbering scheme.
- The district court and the court below held that the 2000 conviction fit the predicate for first-degree DWI, and Retzlaff was convicted and sentenced to 42 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior CVOP conviction qualifies as predicate for first-degree DWI | Retzlaff argues the plain-numbering of 609.21,1(3) excludes his 2000 predicate 609.21,2a conviction. | Retzlaff relies on plain language; the 2007 numbering change creates a mismatch that would defeat the enhancement. | Yes; the prior conviction qualifies under the statute’s purpose, notwithstanding numbering changes. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 2003) (statutory construction de novo)
- State v. Maas, 664 N.W.2d 397 (Minn.App. 2003) (absurd result exception to plain-language reading)
- State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517 (Minn. 2003) (rejects absurd results from literal readings)
- Mutual Service Cas. Ins. Co. v. League of Minnesota Cities Ins. Trust, 659 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. 2003) (when plain language defeats legislative purpose, consider purpose)
- State v. Hurd, 763 N.W.2d 17 (Minn. 2009) (test for sufficiency of evidence)