Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Oldenburg v. State, 763 N.W.2d 655.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
at 93 (emphasis added); (“[F]or the addition of a conditional-release 10 Nonprecedential opinions are not binding but “may be cited as persuasive authority.” Minn. R. Civ.
Andrew Charles Patton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Patton’s Plea Was Intelligent “A plea is intelligent when the defendant understands the charges, his or her rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.” Oldenburg v. State , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A plea is intelligent when the defendant understands the charges, his or her rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether a plea is voluntary is determined by considering all relevant circumstances.” (quotations omitted)); Oldenburg v. State , (“A plea is voluntary when it is made without improper pressures or inducements.” (quotation omitted)); cf. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc. , (Anderson, J., dissenting) (“[A] plea decision may be ‘v oluntary’ even if a motivating influence is particularly strong, .
Thong v. State 892 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Thong v. State 892 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
sequences of the plea and the plea will be considered to have been voluntary and intelligent.” -48 (Minn.2001) (providing that defendant was “on notice that a statute required that he serve a conditional release term” when term was added and subsequently removed from his sentence); (concluding that addition of conditional-release period did not violate plea agreement where plea agreement did not prescribe definite sentence and defendant was on notice of conditional-release period because it was
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Jon Wilczek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Jon Wilczek Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Because the plea agreement did not prescribe a definite sentence, we conclude that the later addition of the conditional-release term did not violate the plea agreement.”).
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, - 12 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. July 16, 2002).
Robel Belay Kubrom v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robel Belay Kubrom v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 655, 659 (Minn. App. 2009) (upholding the district court’s denial of postconviction relief because the record supported the district court’s finding that the appellant was on notice of the conditional-release term and “[b]ecause the plea agreement did not prescribe a definite sentence”); Brown, d at 675 (holdi
Xavier Jerome Buckhanan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Xavier Jerome Buckhanan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]hat the parties agreed to at the time of the plea agreement is an issue of fact to be resolved by the district court.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Daniel Waldor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Daniel Waldor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
n.1 (Minn. App. 2009) (applying cases involving conditional release for criminal sexual conduct in case involving conditional release for felony DWI).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that appellant had adequate notice of plea requirements when it was set forth in the plea petition but not discussed at the plea or sentencing hearings).