This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Rafai A. Abrar,
Filed May 9, 2006
Clay County District Court
File No. K5-04-1042
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800
Lisa N. Borgen, Clay County Attorney, Jenny M. Samarzja, Assistant County Attorney, 807 N. 11th Street, P.O. Box 280, Moorhead, MN 56561-0280 (for respondent)
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Ann McCaughan,
Assistant Public Defender,
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Lansing, Judge; and Shumaker, Judge.
challenges the district court’s denial of his pretrial motion to prohibit the
use of his North Dakota impaired-driving convictions to enhance
Minnesota Impaired Driving Code presents a scheme of offenses and penalties and
enhanced offenses and penalties for driving, operating, or being in physical
control of a motor vehicle while impaired from alcohol or other specified
Appellant Rafai Abrar was pulled over in
Appellant’s DWI charges were enhanced based on a prior Minnesota DWI conviction and two prior North Dakota DWI convictions. The state alleged that appellant had three qualified prior impaired-driving incidents that permitted enhancement of the current DWI charges to the first-degree, or felony, level. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.24, subd. 1(1) (stating that a person violating section 169A.20 is guilty of first-degree DWI if the current charge is the fourth qualified prior impaired-driving incident within ten years).
was convicted of a DWI in
The district court denied appellant’s motion, and, on the day of trial, appellant pleaded guilty to giving a false name to a police officer, failure to provide insurance, driving after revocation, and making an illegal U-turn. Appellant proceeded to trial solely on the DWI charges. The jury convicted appellant of two felony counts of DWI: first-degree driving while impaired and driving with an alcohol content of .10 or more. The district court imposed a 42-month sentence but stayed execution subject to conditions. This appeal follows.
challenges the use of prior North Dakota DWI convictions to enhance his current
DWI charges. The district court’s denial
of appellant’s motion to prohibit the use of his
Previously, we held that an
out-of-state conviction or revocation obtained in violation of
If a defendant were permitted
to challenge the validity of his out-of-state convictions at the time they are used
as enhancements in
The supreme court concluded “that