DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Butala v. State, 664 N.W.2d 333.

132 citing documents.

  • Ganpat v. State 746 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2008
  • Ganpat v. State 746 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 2008
    On review of a postconviction court’s denial of relief, we “extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.”
  • Wayne v. State 747 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2008
  • Wayne v. State 747 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 2008
    “On review of a postconvietion court’s denial of relief, we ‘extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.’ ” ().
  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
  • Cooper v. State 745 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
    (“The involuntariness of a guilty plea constitutes such a manifest injustice as to entitle a defendant to withdraw his plea.” (internal quotation omitted)); (“Manifest injustice occurs if a guilty plea is not accurate, voluntary, and intelligent, and t
  • State v. Ferguson 742 N.W.2d 651 Minn. 2007
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
  • Spann v. State 740 N.W.2d 570 Minn. 2007
    On review óf a postconviction court’s denial of relief, we “extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact.”
  • State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
    (stating that where the defendant has entered an adequately supported guilty plea, the defendant is free to move “to withdraw his plea on the ground that withdrawal was necessary to correct a manifest injustice * * * or on the ground that there was a ‘fair and just’ reason for his wanting to do so.”); -39 (Minn.2003) (stating that a guilty plea “ ‘must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent’ ” but noting that “after entry of the guilty plea and either before or after sentence, upon timely motio
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
  • Cuypers v. State 711 N.W.2d 100 Minn. 2006
    On review of postconviction decisions, we have an “ ‘obligation to extend a broad review of both questions of law and fact * ⅜ *.’ ” (quoting State ex rel.
  • Spann v. State 704 N.W.2d 486 Minn. 2005
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Erickson v. State 702 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
  • James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
    (appellant’s four-year delay in seeking relief is a relevant consideration in determining whether that relief should be granted); -19 (Minn.1996) (appellant’s 15-year delay in filing a petition for postconvic
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
  • Williams v. State 692 N.W.2d 893 Minn. 2005
    (citing Pittman v. Tahash, 284 Minn. 365, 368 , ).
  • Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
  • Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • Ture v. State 681 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2004
  • James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004