Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Propotnik, 216 N.W.2d 637.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez Minn. 2026
(relying, in part, on defendant’s written plea petition to conclude that defendant entered his plea voluntarily and intelligently).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
If the “record reveals careful interrogation by the trial court and the defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel before entering his plea, the court may safely presume that the defendant was adequately informed of his rights.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
petition.2 But whether or not there was a plea petition, if the “record reveals careful interrogation by the [district] court and the defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel before entering his plea, the court may safely presume that the defendant was adequately informed of his rights.” (citing State v. Propotnik , ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
If the “record reveals careful interrogation by the trial court and the defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel before entering his plea, the court may safely presume that the defendant was adequately informed of his rights.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
If the “record reveals careful interrogation by the trial court and the defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel before entering his plea, the court may safely presume that the defendant was adequately informed of his rights.” Hernandez v. 6 State, (citing State v. Propotnik , d 637, 638 (Minn. 1974)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If the “record reveals careful interrogation by the trial court and the defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel before entering his plea, the court may safely presume that the defendant was adequately informed of his rights.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jamey Ryan Williams Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
& n.2 (Minn. 1979); State v. Stellmach, 307 Minn. 359, 360, d 820, 821 (1976) ; State v. Propotnik , 299 Minn. 56, 58 , .
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
t of the consequences of pleading where he had full opportunity to discuss case with counsel before entering the plea); Swanson v. State, 284 Minn. 66, 71–72, d 32, 36 (1969) (“When a court-appointed counsel represents a defendant, it is presumed that his counsel will advise him of his rights and the consequences that will follow a plea of guilty or not guilty.”); State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56, 58, (“[S]ince the record shows that defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel befo
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
see also State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56, 58, (collecting cases supporting the presumption that when a “defendant had full opportunity to consult with his counsel before entering his plea, we may safely presume that counsel informed him adequately concerning” a right on which he was not “specifically” questioned); cf. State v.
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
App. P. 110.01 (“The documents filed in the [district] court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings, if any, shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases.”); –38 (Minn. 1974) (upholding defendant’s guilty plea because, even though defendant was not orally informed during the plea hearing of his right to confront witnesses, “the record includes a copy of the petition to enter a plea of guilty which defendant had signed and which he admitted reading and understanding
Hernandez v. State 408 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hernandez v. State 408 N.W.2d 623 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
1709, 1712 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56, 57-58
State v. Hemmings 371 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hemmings 371 N.W.2d 44 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56
Doughman v. State 351 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Doughman v. State 351 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The facts in this case parallel those in State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , in which the court stated It is true that defendant was not questioned specifically concerning his right to confront his accusers at trial.
State v. Nordstrom 331 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1983
State v. Nordstrom 331 N.W.2d 901 Minn. 1983
884, 890 , 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962); State v. Stellmach, 307 Minn. 359, 360 , State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56, 57-58
Kochevar v. State 281 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1979
Kochevar v. State 281 N.W.2d 680 Minn. 1979
However, a trial court need not specifically inform him of all his constitutional rights, State v. Chounard, 299 Minn. 216 , State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , nor must it delineate all possible defenses which may be assertable at trial.
State v. Clark 279 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1979
State v. Clark 279 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647 , 96 S.Ct.
State v. Lorentz 276 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1979
State v. Lorentz 276 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1979
Support for relying on this presumption of adequate advice, which this court has done in numerous cases, see, e. g., State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , may be found in Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647 , 96 S.ct.
Shackelford v. State 253 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1977
Shackelford v. State 253 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 1977
See, State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56
State v. Nace 241 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1976
State v. Nace 241 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1976
See, State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56
State v. Stellmach 240 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1976
State v. Stellmach 240 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1976
As *360 we stated in State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , Boykin did not hold that a defendant is entitled to plead anew simply because the trial court failed to interrogate him about his understanding of a particular right or element of the charge or consequence of his plea of guilty.
State v. Russell 236 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1975
State v. Russell 236 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 1975
State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56
State v. Fries 231 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1975
State v. Fries 231 N.W.2d 553 Minn. 1975
ant — specifically, that he should be permitted to plead anew because the trial court did not elicit all the testimony establishing the factual basis for the plea and because the trial court did not inform defendant of all his constitutional rights before accepting the plea — are answered by this court’s opinions in State v. Irving, 299 Minn. 211 , and State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , respectively.
State v. Chounard 216 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1974
State v. Chounard 216 N.W.2d 908 Minn. 1974
As we stated recently in State v. Propotnik, 299 Minn. 56 , in rejecting a similar contention, Boykin did not hold that the trial court must specifically inform a defendant of all his constitutional rights before accepting a guilty plea; rather, it held that a guilty plea must appear on the record to have been voluntarily and intelligently made and t