Cited by

“A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after entering it.” (quotation omitted).

6 D E C I S I O N I. Standard of Review While “[a] defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea after entering it” withdrawal must be allowed “to correct a manifest injustice.” Taylor v. State , (quotation omitted); Minn. R. Crim.

See Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356 , 375-76, 130 S. Ct. 1473 , 1487 (2010), (Alito, J., concurring); -42 (Minn. 2007); -41 (Minn. App. 2017); (holding that failure to advise client about predatory-offender- registration requirements “does not violate a defendant’s rights to the effective assistance of counsel” because it is non -punitive).

See Taylor v. State , (reiterating that Padilla neither classified immigration conseque nces as direct or collateral nor destroyed the “direct- versus-collateral distinction”).

A defendant need not know of every consequence of his plea for the plea to be intelligent, but he must know of the direct consequences of a plea, which are “definite, immediate, and automatic and are punitive and part of a defendant’s sentence.” State v. Brown , (Minn. App .

“To be valid, a guilty plea mu st be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”

“To be valid, a guilty plea must be accu rate, voluntary, and intelligent.” Taylor v. State

The district court stayed the proceedings on appellant ’s (holding that “a defense attorney’s failure to advise a defendant about predatory-offender-registration requirements before the defendant enters a guilty plea does not viol ate a defendant’s rights to the effective assistance of counsel .

“[C]ounsel plays a key role in ensuri ng that any plea is intelligent by explaining the charges, the rights to be waived , and the consequences of the plea.”

Although we review the denial of an evidentiary hearing and a petition for post-conviction relief for an abuse of discretion, the 'overall question of whether Dikken’s ’guilty plea was valid presents a question of law that we review de novo

-24 (Minn. 2016); Sames, d at 567-68 .

The purpose of the requirement that a guilty plea be intelligent “is to insure that the defendant understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.” Taylor v. State , (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N “A defendant has no absolute right to wi thdraw a guilty plea after entering it.” (quotation omitted).

-79 (Minn.1998) (holding that defense counsel was not required to inform a non-citizen defendant that his plea would lead to deportation because the immigration consequences did not “flow definitely, immediately, and automatically from the guilty plea”)