Judge sentences Hastings man to 5 years for felony drugged driving

A judge has sentenced a Hastings man to five years in state prison on a felony conviction for driving while impaired. Last summer, Minnesota state law addressed so-called “bath salts” in the state’s DWI statutes.

The Hastings man reportedly told law enforcement after a traffic stop near Rosemount that he was under the influence of bath salts and the man was subsequently arrested for felony DWI. News reports now indicate that the man actually tested positive for the presence of cocaine and methamphetamine. Controlled substances have long been covered under Minnesota’s implied consent and DWI statutes.

The nature of the alleged substance, however, is not the basis for the felony charges filed against the Hastings man. DWI offenses in Minnesota can be elevated to the felony level for a number of reasons, including alleged prior DWI convictions.

Minnesota DWI laws look back ten years for prior DWI convictions or other qualified impaired driving incidents, which include prior DWI license revocations. Those prior incidents can be used to enhance a current charge to a felony. Generally, three prior DWI convictions in the past ten years is sufficient for authorities to seek a felony DWI charge, as this blog has previously discussed.

It is important to note that a prior felony DWI conviction is not subject to the general ten-year look back period, and can be used alone to enhance a current allege offense to a felony.

Dakota County prosecutors say the Hastings man had a prior felony DWI conviction from 2005, for which the media says the man was incarcerated for a year. News reports also say that the man had a total of ten prior DWI convictions, but the media generally does not indicate the timing of those prior convictions.

The Hastings man reportedly pled guilty to the felony DWI charge and recently faced sentencing in Dakota County. Prosecutors asked the judge to impose a five-year prison sentence for the conviction and the judge reportedly agreed.

Source: My Fox Twin Cities, “Man Sentenced to 5 Years for 11th DWI,” April 8, 2012

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.