Cited by

d 447, 457-58 (Minn. App. 2012) (holding that a defendant who repudiates the express terms of a plea agreement waives the protection of the double-jeopardy prohibition).

-55 (Minn. App. 2012) (quotation omitted).

[and] only demonstrate that the jury believed the state failed to establish the elements of [the acquitted charges].” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

(stating that jury acquittals “only demonstrate that the jury believed the state failed to establish the elements” of the crime charged).

P. 31.02; rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

See Lewis, d at 539 (permitting district court to “consider the effect that changes in the sentence have on the entire plea agreement”); -55 (Minn. App. 2012) (concluding that district court acted within scope of remand for withdrawal of guilty plea to one offense by also vacating pleas and convictions to related offenses to “allow the prosecution to proceed anew”) ; cf. Provost, d at 202 n.1 (observing that in the case of a “bargained-

to make piecemeal corrections without regard to the effect of the corrections on the plea bargain.” Id.; (holding that this court’s remand instructions after appellant successfully challenged some of his convictions in a plea agreement also allowed the district court to vacate the unchallenged convictions in the plea agreement), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

When an appellant waives the right to a lesser-included-offense instruction, he has waived the issue on appeal and “may not argue that the court erred in not sua sponte giving the instruction.” (qu otation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

See Misquadace , d at 491 (considering the par ties’ respective objectives to determine interrelatedness); State v. Montermini , (concluding that the district court did not err in granting the state’s motion to vacate other convictions implicated by the plea agreement in a case in volving “several interrelated alleged offenses”).

” review denied (Minn. Nov.

Appellate courts “review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions for an abuse of discretion.”

In reaching its conclusion, review denied (Minn. Nov.

“[Appellate co urts] review a district court’s compliance with remand instructions for an abuse of discretion.”

(noting that the district court generally has “flexibility to consider the effect of the court of appeals decision on the remainder of the plea agreement”), review denied (Minn. Nov.

see Johnson v. State , (noting that where appellant’s requested relief would alter a bargained-for sentence, a district court on remand 8 may allow the state to withdraw from the agreement and move for ward to trial on the original charges).

Where, as here, plea agreements involve multiple crimes, this court has recognized that such agreements “are often intricate and require a delicate balancing of competing considerations.” (quotation omitted).

“Plea agreements involving multiple crimes are often ‘intricate’ and require a delicate balancing of competing considerations.” State v. Montermini , (citing State v. Misquadace , aff’d, ).

Monroe asserts that this indicates the jury did not find L .C.’s where this court determined the opposite.

[and] only demonstrate that the jury believed the state failed to establish the elements of [the offense.]” State v. Montermini

() 2 The record demonstrates that the parties contemplated and agreed that appellant would receive lifetime conditional releases on case two and case three.

However, because the error in this case resulted from a plea agreement, the district court on remand is “‘free to consider the effect that ch anges in the sentence have on the entire plea agreement’ and could entertain motions to vacate the conviction a nd the plea agreement.” (d 535, 539 (Minn. 2003)), review denied (Minn. Aug.

Regardless, this court has previously stated that acquittals “shed no light on which circumstances the jury believed or disbelieved.”

in which this court concluded that, after partial postconviction relief due to invalid guilty pleas, a district court did not err by granting a motion by the state to vacate other convictions implicated by a plea agreement and to return the parties to the positions they occupied before the plea a

We have recognized that acquittals “shed no light on which circumstances the jury believed or disbelieved.”

But when, as here, the error results from a plea agreement, the district court on remand is “‘free to consider the effect that changes in the sentence have on the entire plea agreement’ and could entertain motions to vacate the conviction and the plea agreement.” ().

Where, as here, plea agreements involve multiple crimes, this court has recognized that such agreements “are often intricate and require a delicate balancing of competing considerations.” (quotation omitted).

“District courts are given broad discretion to determine how to proceed on remand, as they may act in any way not inconsistent with the remand instructions provided.” (alteration and quotation omitted).

Truelson does not cite any relevant legal authority for this position, however.1 The district court dealt with the three cases at one hearing, likely for purposes of judicial economy or at the request of the attorneys, but that 1 –55 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Nov.

(stating that an acquittal “shed[s] no light on which circumstances the jury believed or disbelieved”).

-55 (Minn. App. 2012) (rejecting appellant’s claim that the district court’s decision on remand to vacate guilty pleas that he had not sought to withdraw and convictions from which he had not appealed violated the scope of the remand articulated by this court), review denied (Minn. Nov.

reed to.” aff’d on other grounds, (stating that following defendant’s successful appeal of his sentence “the district court should be free to consider the effect that changes in the sentence have on the entire plea agreement”); (rejecting the 8 defendant’s argument that the district court erred by vacating guilty pleas that were not challenged on appeal following a successful challenge to one of the defendant’s convictions).