Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Shaughnessy, 606 N.W.2d 670.

117 citing documents.

Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the supreme court explained the voluntariness requirement by stating, “ ‘when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.’ ” Id.
Oldenburg v. State 763 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-20 (Minn.2003); -73 (Minn.2000)
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Rhodes 675 N.W.2d 323 Minn. 2004
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
In examining the voluntariness requirement, that “ ‘when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.’ ” (quoting Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 , 92 S.Ct.
State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Christopherson 644 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
State v. Henthorne 637 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
[State v.] Garcia, d at 882.
State v. Calmes 632 N.W.2d 641 Minn. 2001
State v. Schwartz 628 N.W.2d 134 Minn. 2001
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
State v. Johnson 617 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Robledo-Kinney 615 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2000
“What the parties agreed to involves an issue of fact to be resolved by the district court.”