Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Byron, 683 N.W.2d 317.

22 citing documents.

Kayd Mohamed Falug, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We also “presume that, prior to entry of a guilty plea, defense counsel reviews the plea petition with the defendant and the defendant understands its terms.” rev. denied (Minn. 6 Sept.
Germaine Yurii Butler, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
direct consequences of a plea.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A defendant pleads guilty intelligently if he does so “after [he] has been informed of and understands the charges and direct consequences of a plea.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mitchell Le Dac Ho, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
the motion should be made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations quoted therein.” State v. Byron , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We 5 presume that, prior to entry of a guilty plea, defense counsel reviews the plea petition with the defendant and the defendant understands its terms.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mary Kate Nguyen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“We presume that, prior to entry of a guilty plea, defense counsel reviews the plea petition with the defendant and the defendant understands its terms.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A guilty plea is intelligently made if it is “entered after a defendant has been informed of and understands the charges and direct consequences of a plea.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A guilty plea is intelligently made if it is “entered after a defendant has been informed of and understands the charges and direct consequences of a plea.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Leanne Starr, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A guilty plea is intelligently made if it is “entered after a defendant has been informed of and understands the charges and direct consequences of a plea.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Hanson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Hanson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[o]n questions of fact, if there is 3 sufficient evidence to support the district court’s findings, they will not be disturbed” on review of district court’s plea-withdrawal decision), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Rew v. Bergstrom 812 N.W.2d 832 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(stating due process requires a defendant be informed only of *841 direct, not collateral consequences of a plea), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Turnbull 766 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Turnbull 766 N.W.2d 78 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
16, 1984); and (3) whether the delay causes undue prejudice to the state’s prosecution of the case, review denied (Minn. Sept.