Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Danh, 516 N.W.2d 539.

70 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez Minn. 2026
We are particularly concerned about potential coercion when a defendant enters into a contingent plea agreement—a special type of plea agreement in which a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for leniency for a third party.4
State of Minnesota v. Branson Dean Moen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 539, 541, 544 (Minn. 1994) (reasoning that state was prejudiced by having released numerous witnesses from subpoena).
State of Minnesota v. Sharmark Hussein Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sharmark Hussein Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To determine whether a plea was voluntary, courts must consider “all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Mykell Steffon Burton Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if there is reasonable evidence to support them.”
Nathan Wesley McDonald v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nathan Wesley McDonald v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
McDonald’s plea agreement was not a “package deal.” A “package deal” is a “contingent plea agreement involving more lenient sentences for [the pleading defendant’s] co-defendants.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lavell Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Stephen Dontrail Thornton v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(reviewing questions of fact regarding validity of a plea for clear error); (noting that appellate courts do not make credibility determinations), aff’d on other grounds sub nom.
State of Minnesota v. Artavies Raymone Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Dequarn Markeyth Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Bacon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
problematic because Mr. Bacon’s guilty plea was induced by the state’s promise to dismiss a charge against his girlfriend.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized plea agreements with a contingent or “package deal” are not “per se invalid” but “are generally considered ‘dangerous because of the risk of coercion.’” (
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Dale Klitzke Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Raymond Armendariz Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Danh , d 539, 544 (Minn. 1994) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Tescil Romalis Mason-Kimmons Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Edward Dean Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Bounlieng Moon Chaokhio Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 539, 544 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Jackie Mae Leonard Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 539, 544 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. David Joseph Madrigal Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Larry Donnell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The “involuntariness of a guilty plea constitutes such a manifest injustice as to entitle a defendant to withdraw his plea.” ( quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Factual determinations are not clearly erroneous “if there is reasonable evidence to support them.”
David Walt Studanski v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
State v. Danh , , 544 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Charles Knutson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Damon Michael DiMartino Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Michael Dejaris Denson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Jude Schnagl Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ellis-Strong 899 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ellis-Strong 899 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(remanding for a postcon-viction hearing where record was insufficient to determine whether guilty plea was involuntary, requiring plea withdrawal).
Lester Leander Wiechmann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether a plea is voluntary is determined by “considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Eugene Ryan Boos Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While “package deal” plea agreements, such as the one agreed to by Boos, are not “per se invalid,” they are “fraught with danger.” State v. Danh
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Anthony Torgesen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jesse Lee Paskey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jesse Lee Paskey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jonathan Nicholas Turner v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 749, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1469 (1970)).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 539, 542 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 539, 544 (Minn. 1994).
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014