Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Campos v. State, 816 N.W.2d 480.

96 citing documents.

Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2017
Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 890 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2017
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); -86 (Minn.2012).
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 887 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota 887 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 2016
We held in Alanis v. State that “it is the direct consequences of the guilty plea to which we refer.” (emphasis added), abrogated in part by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010); -88 (Minn. 2012).
Luis Gerardo Garcia Urbano v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Luis Gerardo Garcia Urbano v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1, for an abuse of discretion.” d 480, 485 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Politano Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Robert Politano Minn. Ct. App. 2016
constitutional criminal procedure [that] apply both on direct and collateral review.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tommy William Mix Minn. Ct. App. 2016
in turn, is further defined as “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” or “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” n.3 (Minn. 2012) (citing 18 U.S.C.
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Old rules of federal constitutional criminal procedure apply both on direct and collateral review.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Charles Cibulka v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
ground that, in a case involving a conviction of refusal to submit to chemical testing, the new rule of McNeely “is not being 1 (reaffirming prior holding that new rule in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), is procedural); Chambers, d at 330 (holding that new rule in Miller is procedural); (holding that new rule in Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is procedural); -61 (Minn. 2006) (holding that new rule in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), is procedu
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
565, 568 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds by and cert.
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kodjo Agbelengeor Anyide-Ocloo v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
9 a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea by asserting that his or her counsel provided ineffective assistance, the defendant has the burden of proving prejudice by showing “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 59, 106 S. Ct. at 370; see also Padilla, 130 S. Ct. at 1485 (“[A] petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have b
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Hector Martinez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The requirement that a plea be intelligent “ensures that a defendant understands the charges against him, the rights he is waiving, and the consequences of his plea.” Campos v. State, 4 (quotation omitted).
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benard Nyangate Mauti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benard Nyangate Mauti v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Shawn Michael O'Connell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Shawn Michael O'Connell v. State of Minnesota 858 N.W.2d 161 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(recognizing finality of conviction as threshold issue for retroactivity analysis).
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terelle Eugene Shaw v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
German N. Salgado Velasquez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But Padilla does not have retroactive effect, and cannot provide a basis for withdrawal of Velasquez’s plea.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Griffith v. 8 Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 322–23, 328, 107 S. Ct. 708, 713, 716 (1987) (stating that “the integrity of judicial review” requires application of the new rule to all similar cases pending on direct review)
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
Roman Nose v. State 845 N.W.2d 193 Minn. 2014
But we explicitly rejected a -95 (Minn.2012).
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
Chambers v. State 831 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 2013
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010)