![State v. Cunningham](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![State v. Cunningham](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
State v. Cunningham
663 N.W.2d 7, 2003.MN.0000892
-
- USD 0.99
-
- USD 0.99
Descripción editorial
Affirmed in part and reversed in part OPINION Appellants challenge the trial court's imposition of the $28 co-payment required by Minn. Stat. § 611.17(c) (2002). They argue that the co-payment infringes on their rights to counsel and equal protection under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions, and that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the co-payment on appellants. Appellants Sommerlot, Peterson, and Cunningham argue further that the trial court impermissibly ordered them to pay twice for the same public defender services when the court ordered them to pay the $28 co-payment and to reimburse the public defender's office $20. Because we conclude that the co-payment required by sectionÁ611.17(c) is constitutional, and that the court was within its discretion in imposing the co-payment on appellants, but that the court must take the $28 co-payment into account when ordering reimbursement and that the court erred in ordering appellants Sommerlot, Peterson, and Cunningham to reimburse the public defenders office $20 in addition to the co-payment, we affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS