Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Thompson, 754 N.W.2d 352.

49 citing documents.

A25-0113 Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A21-0480 Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
15a (2020); (holding the “use of the word ‘shall’” in Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (deferring acceptance of plea until sentencing).
In the Matter of Midway Pro Bowl Relocation Benefits Claim. Minn. 2020
William Marcus Daniel Edwards, petitioner Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Additionally, “[i]f the court rejects the plea agreement, it must advise the parties in open court and then call upon the defendant to either affirm or withdraw the plea.” Id.; holding that the language of rule 15.04 “indicates the rule is mandatory”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Therefore, when a defendant ente rs a guilty plea, “a conviction requires that a dist rict court both accept and record the guilty plea.” (citing Minn. St at.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Therefore, when a defendant enters a guilty plea, “a conviction requires that a dist rict court both accept and record the guilty plea.” (citing Minn. St at.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
which it described as a “useful comparison.” d at 62.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See (concluding that district court reserved acceptance of plea deal until completion of PSI report).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
cf. State v. Thompson , (determining that the district court did not accept a plea agreement when it expressly “reserve[d] a decision as to the appropriateness of the plea agreement”).
Joseph Roach, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Thompson , -60 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2002).
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes 863 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes 863 N.W.2d 77 Minn. 2015
7, is not required to satisfy the Minn. Stat. § 609.02 requirement that a guilty plea be ‘recorded by the court.’ ” n.4 (Minn. 2008).
Bio Wood Processing, LLC, Relator v. Rice County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Bio Wood Processing, LLC, Relator v. Rice County Board of Commissioners Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-60 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. May 28, 2002).
State v. Brown 835 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Brown 835 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
State v. Jeffries 806 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 2011
State v. Jeffries 806 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 2011
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
In Minnesota, a conviction “requires that a district court both accept and record the guilty plea.” -77 (Minn.2000).
State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has held that, for purposes of its use to enhance a later offense, a “conviction” occurs when “a district court both aecept[s] and record[s] the guilty plea.”
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated that “[t]he objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute’ ” and that “[t]he principal method of determining the legislature’s intent is to rely on the plain meaning of the statute.” ().
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 781 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 781 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated, “The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().'
State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The primary objective in interpreting a statute is “to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.”
Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated, “The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Our supreme court has stated that “[t]he objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Sopko 770 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Sopko 770 N.W.2d 543 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The primary objective in interpreting a statute is “to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.”
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The supreme court has stated, “The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
In re the Risk Level Determination of J.M.T. 759 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 2009
In Re Jmt 759 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 2009
In Re Jmt 759 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 2009
In re the Risk Level Determination of J.M.T. 759 N.W.2d 406 Minn. 2009