DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hirt v. State, 214 N.W.2d 778.

23 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    See, e.g., Theis, d at 651 (holding that, because a defendant’s guilty plea was not accurate and was therefore invalid, withdrawal of that plea must be allowed under rule 15.05, subd ivision 1); Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 557, (“[A] defendant who can show manifest injustice is entitled 7 as a matter of right to withdraw his plea of guilty whether or not his sentence has been imposed.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “[A] defendant who can show manifest injustice is entitled as a matter of right to withdraw his plea of guilty.” Hirt v. State , 298 Minn. 553, 557
  • State of Minnesota v. Elroy James Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Elroy James Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    “[A] defendant who can show manifest injustice is entitled as a matter of right to withdraw his plea of guilty.” Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 557
  • State of Minnesota v. Casey James Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Casey James Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    To support this contention, neither of which support appellant’s position.2 Hirt involved a defendant who pleaded guilty and then sought postconviction relief alleging that his plea was not freely and voluntarily made.
  • State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
    See Flirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 557 , (“[A] defendant who can show manifest injustice is entitled as a matter of right to withdraw his plea of guilty”).
  • Butala v. State 664 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 2003
  • Butala v. State 664 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 2003
    The “ ‘involuntariness of a guilty plea * * * constitute[s] such a manifest injustice as to entitle a defendant to withdraw his plea.’” (quoting Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 558 , ).
  • Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • Sykes v. State 578 N.W.2d 807 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    The “ ‘involuntariness of a guilty plea * * * constitute^] such a manifest injustice as to entitle a defendant to withdraw his plea.’ ” (quoting Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 558 , ).
  • State v. Danh 516 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1994
  • State v. Danh 516 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1994
    We note, however, that “involuntariness of a guilty plea * * * constitute^] such a manifest injustice as to entitle a defendant to withdraw his plea.” Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 558
  • Saliterman v. State 443 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • Saliterman v. State 443 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553, 558
  • Krominga v. State 311 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1981
  • Krominga v. State 311 N.W.2d 858 Minn. 1981
    A Minnesota case supporting this analysis is Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553
  • Hirt v. State 244 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1976
  • Hirt v. State 244 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 1976
    In Hirt v. State, 298 Minn. 553 , we considered an appeal by the state from an order granting defendant post-conviction relief on the ground that his plea was entered involuntarily.
  • State v. Hoaglund 240 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1976
  • State v. Hoaglund 240 N.W.2d 4 Minn. 1976
    5 State v. Robb, 292 Minn. 409 , State v. Gustafson, 298 Minn. 200 , State v. Hirt, 298 Minn. 553 , Beaman v. State, 301 Minn. 180