Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Aviles-Alvarez, 561 N.W.2d 523.

54 citing documents.

Andrew Charles Patton, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
18 Furthermore, in an earlier opinion, State v. Aviles-Alvarez , we stated that “[a] defendant need not know the exact quantity of an illegal drug he sells to be guilty of the crime of conspiring to sell methamphetamine in the first degree.” , 526 (Minn. App. 1997), rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
Bradford Cain Dopkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Bradford Cain Dopkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Although we review the validity of a guilty plea de novo, if a defendant makes inconsistent statements regarding the validity of his guilty plea, “credibility determinations are crucial, [and] a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
Alan Joseph Zakrajshek v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Alan Joseph Zakrajshek v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
If a defendant makes inconsistent statements regarding the validity of his guilty plea, then “credibility determinations are crucial, [and] a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Samuel James Lyons Minn. Ct. App. 2023
16, 2010); (“We conclude that possession of a controlled substance and knowledge of the nature of the substance are essential elements, but that the state does not have to prove, in addition to all other elements, that appellant knew the precise weight or quantity of the controlled-substance.”); (“While the amount is an essential element of the 9 crime, the defendant’s knowledge of the amount is not an essential element.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
Andrew Audstin Emerson Brown, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
When a defendant makes inconsistent statements regarding the validity of his guilty plea, “credibility determinations are crucial, [and] a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Aviles-Alvarez , rev. denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Aviles-Alvarez , review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
S’Emaj Avyiair Okongwu, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(relying on an on -the-record exchange between defendant and his attorney to conclude that defe ndant’s plea was voluntary); Ecker, d at 718-19 (relying on “[t]he record of the guilty plea” to reject a claim that a plea was not voluntary); -27 (Minn. App. 1997) (relying on the plea petition and testimony at the plea hearing to conclude that defendant’s plea was intelligent), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court was satisfied that he did so , and we defer “to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).4 On this record, Friedrichs has not shown that his plea was involuntary.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When determining whether an offender is particularly amenable, “credibility determinations are crucial, [and] a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Jones 921 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Aviles-Alvarez , , 527 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
A17-1841 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Aviles-Alvarez , review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Where, as here, credibility determinations are crucial, a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” (affirming order denying plea withdrawal and deferring to district court’s credibility deter mination), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Jun.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that the district court is “entitled to make credibility assessments” in determining whether a defendant understood the consequences of his plea), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997); (stating that a new trial based on false testimony may be granted only if the court is reasonably well satisfied the testimony was false).
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Earl Lionell Ward Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When “credibility determinations are crucial, a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Frank Henry Stanhope Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frank Henry Stanhope Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Raleigh, d at 96 (relying on an on-the-record exchange between defendant and his attorney to conclude that defendant’s plea was voluntary); -19 (Minn. 1994) (relying on “[t]he record of the guilty plea” to reject a claim that a plea was not voluntary); -27 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997) (relying on the plea petition and testimony at the plea hearing to conclude that defendant’s plea was intelligent).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Wipper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Wipper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When a defendant makes inconsistent statements regarding the validity of his guilty plea, “credibility determinations are crucial, [and] a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Kelvin Lenar Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kelvin Lenar Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Devon Jarmon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When “credibility determinations are crucial, a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Mandall Nickerson, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Mandall Nickerson, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
If credibility determinations are crucial in determining whether a guilty plea is invalid, “a reviewing court will give deference to the primary observations and trustworthiness assessments made by the district court.” review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. June 11, 1997).
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. June 11,1997).
State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
This court, in State v. Aviles-Alvarez, stated, “[wjhile the amount is an essential element of the crime, the defendant’s knowledge of the amount is not an essential element.”