Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Wheeler v. State, 909 N.W.2d 558.

68 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The district court’s limited role is to be an “independent examiner of the propriety of a plea submitted for judicial acceptance, and not a participant in the plea bargaining .” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antonyo Esquire Lundy Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Robert Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Robert Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2026
3(1); -65 (Minn. 2018) (stating that a district court judge “should not participate” in the plea negotiations).
State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”
State of Minnesota v. Tieshawn Stevie Fields Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Tieshawn Stevie Fields Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
“Under the principle of stare decisis, we are reluctant to overrule our precedent unless there is a compelling reason to do so.” (emphasis added) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(citing Von Moltke v. Gillies , 332 U.S. 708, 721 (1948)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the [district court], but instead we exercise independent review.” d 558, 563 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
overruled on other grounds 12
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the [district court], but instead we exercise independent review.”
Malachi Henessey Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Malachi Henessey Rodriguez v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. 2024
In contrast, “[u]nder the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.” d 558, 563 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jaye William Snyder Minn. 2024
“The interpretation of case law is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Devin Lee Arola Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Devin Lee Arola Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[A] direct appeal is appropriate when the record contains factual support for the defendant’s claim and when no disputes of material fact must be resolved to evaluate the 7 claim on the merits.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2004)
State of Minnesota v. Salahedden K. Nakhleh Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Salahedden K. Nakhleh Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead exercise independent review.”
Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
Rebecca Lynn Fideldy, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Estate of: Mathew Joseph Tomczik, Deceased. Minn. 2023
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S.B.G., Parent. Minn. 2023
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”
Taquinia Kokela Douglas, Minn. 2023
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.” Minn. 2018).
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: A. R. J. and B. J. J., Parents. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
exercise independent review” ()).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2021
6 not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that “a district court judge should not participate in the plea bargaining negotiation itself”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
ts as to her competency, defense counsel’s decision not to move to withdraw her guilty plea was not objectively 1 Appellant maintains that her attorneys’ deficient performance is established by their failure to honor her request to withdraw her guilty ple a prior to sentencing pursuant to Anderson v. State
Mohamed Abdikadir Ahmed, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Anyanwu , & n.1 (Minn. App. 2004)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.” Wheeler v. State
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Mitchell Le Dac Ho, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Charity Slaughter, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Under the de novo standard, we do not defer to the analysis of the courts below, but instead we exercise independent review.”).