DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Chapman v. State, 162 N.W.2d 698.

98 citing documents.

  • Nicholas Patrick Pankuch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    For example, a manifest injustice may exist if a district court “lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter” or if a defendant “was not adequately afforded th e advice of competent counsel.” ( ).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Chapman v. State , ( second alteration in original) (quoting Everett v. United States, 336 F.2d 979, 984 (D.C.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    10 Chapman v. State , ( footnote and quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “The tender and acceptance of a plea of guilty is and must be a most solemn commitment.” Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Cf. Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 22, d 698, 704 (1968) (concluding defendant’s guilty plea t o a murder charge was inaccurate because he “specifically denied an intent to kill”).
  • Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
  • Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
    1621 , 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) ) ); Chapman v. State , 282 Minn. 13 , , 700 (1968) (referencing the "general policy favoring ...
  • Michael Dejaris Denson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    9 had before it in the nature of a factual basis”); Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 22, (holding defendant’s guilty plea to a murder charge was inaccurate because he “specifically denied an intent to kill”); State ex rel.
  • Scott Andrew Marcucci v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • Scott Andrew Marcucci v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 20, State v. Jones, 267 Minn. 421, 426-27, -57 (1964).
  • State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    To allow Casey to withdraw his plea would be contrary to the principle that a guilty plea is “a most solemn commitment,” Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16, (quotation omitted), and would tend to “undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process,” Kim, d at 266.
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    at 350 (citing Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 20, State v. Jones, 267 Minn. 421, 426-27, -57 (1964)).
  • State v. Miller 849 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Miller 849 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “[0]nee the plea is accepted and a judgment of conviction is entered upon it, the general policy favoring the finality of judgments applies to some extent, at least, in criminal as well as in civil cases.” Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16
  • State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    The tender and acceptance of a plea of guilty is and must be a most solemn commitment.” Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    While there is no established time limit barring motions for withdrawal of a guilty plea, such motions should be “made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations therein.” Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 17
  • James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
  • James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
    consideration in determining whether that relief should be granted); -19 (Minn.1996) (appellant’s 15-year delay in filing a petition for postconviction relief was “deliberate and inexcusable” and constituted abuse of judicial process because defendant purposefully delayed to avoid extradition for crimes committed in a foreign jurisdiction); Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 20-21 , (“We have refused to order vacation of a plea of guilty when manifest injustice has not been demonstrated.
  • State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    There is no explicit time limit barring motions for a plea withdrawal, but the motion should be “made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations quoted therein.” (quoting Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 17 , ), review granted (Minn. Apr.
  • State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
  • James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    A motion “is timely if made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations therein.” Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 17 , (quoting A.B.A.
  • State v. Iverson 664 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Iverson 664 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2003
    Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 20 , State v. Jones, 267 Minn. 421, 426-27 , -57 (1964).
  • State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
    (citing Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16-17 , -01 (1968), and Hoag- *525 -37 (Minn.1994)).
  • Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
  • Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
    Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16 , (quoting Everett v. United States, 336 F.2d 979, 984 (D.C.Cir.1964)).
  • State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
    See Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16-17 , -01 (1968)) (noting that a plea should not be withdrawn and judgment vacated without the strongest of reasons, if serious prejudice to state); -37 (Minn.1994) (discussing factors considered in determining whether state is unduly prejudiced by a
  • State v. Washburn 602 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Washburn 602 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16 , (quoting Everett v. United States, 836 F.2d 979, 984 (D.C.Cir.
  • Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    See Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16-17 , -01 (1968) (requiring the “strongest of reasons” to "withdraw plea after conviction where effect would be to seriously prejudice state and warning against use of guilty plea as tactical device to frustrate prosecution); (noting withdrawa
  • Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
  • Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
    Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13 , 19 n. 8, , 702 n. 8 (1968).
  • State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
  • State v. Crims 540 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
    See Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 16 , (finding policy favoring the finality of judgments applies in criminal cases).
  • State v. Brant 407 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Brant 407 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    1463, 1468 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970); Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13
  • State v. Vieburg 404 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Vieburg 404 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Delay in seeking relief is a relevant consideration, Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 21 , however, Vieburg was proceeding without counsel and was not advised of his rights.
  • Lallier v. State 403 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Lallier v. State 403 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13