Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Raleigh, 778 N.W.2d 90.

864 citing documents.

State v. Klug 839 N.W.2d 723 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Assessing the validity of a plea presents a question of law that we review de novo.”
State v. Cubas 838 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Cubas 838 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-98 (Minn.2010) (holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plea withdrawal under the fair-and-just standard when “the prejudice to the [sjtate was overstated” but the defendant “failed to provide any valid reason why withdrawal would be ‘fair and just’ ”).
Uselman v. State 831 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Uselman v. State 831 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The intelligence requirement ensures that a defendant understands the charges against him, the rights he is waiving, and the consequences of his plea.”
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Campos v. State 816 N.W.2d 480 Minn. 2012
Sames v. State 805 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Sames v. State 805 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In determining whether a defendant’s reason for withdrawal is fair and just, a district court must “give ‘due consideration’ to two factors: (1) the reasons a defendant advances to support withdrawal and (2) [any] prejudice granting the motion would cause the [s]tate [as a result of] reliance on the plea.” (citing Minn.R.Crim.