Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mikulak, 903 N.W.2d 600.

91 citing documents.

Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts that support his claim that the guilty plea is invalid.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts that support his claim that the guilty plea is invalid.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(holding that the factual basis of defendant’s plea was insufficient because de fendant made statements that negated the mens rea element of thei r charged offense).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Matthew James Preston, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Edward Richard Krasky, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“The defendant bears the burden of establishing the facts that support his claim that the guilty plea is invalid.”
Christopher Paul Mattson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“The validity of a guilty plea .
A20-0547 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Yet appellant “bears the burden of establishing the facts that support his claim that the guilty plea is invalid.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
While ignorance of the law does not generally excuse criminal liability, “when knowledge of the law is an element of the offense, mistake of law is a defense because it negates the existence of a required mental state.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-04 (Minn. 2017) (providing that “the knowledge and the violation must occur at the same time ”).
A19-1330 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Nyla Tomeka Murrell-French, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Anthony Paul Schatz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 “The accuracy requirement protects the defendant f rom pleading guilty to a charge more serious than he could have been convicted of at trial.” d 600, 603 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5(a); State v. Mikulak , -04 (Minn. 2017 ).
A18-1999 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5(a); State v. Mikulak , -04 (Minn. 2017) (concluding that an offender must know that he or she violated the statute when the violation occurred).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Mikulak , -04 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea, but must be allowed to do so if “withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice ,” Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Markhel D. Franklin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Alarcon 932 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2019
State v. Mikulak , , 603 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
While we would not consider the statement in the complaint regarding refusing the PBT if Burgess had negated that fact during his plea, (holding that plea lacked factual basis when the defendant negated an essential element of the crime), Burgess did not negate that he refused to take a sc reening test.
Veterine Nicole McGhee, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Mikulak , -04 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Accordingly, the knowledge and the violation must occur at the same time.”).
In Re Charges Of Unprofessional Conduct 924 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 2019
In Re Charges Of Unprofessional Conduct 924 N.W.2d 266 Minn. 2019
State v. Mikulak , , 603 (Minn. 2017) ; see also State v. Watkins , , 30 (Minn. 2013).
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1841 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Mikulak , -04 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mikulak, 9 -04 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “Once a guilty plea has been entered, ther e is no absolute right to withdraw it.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “Once a guilty plea has been entered, there is no absolute right to withdraw it.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018