Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Brown v. State, 449 N.W.2d 180.

158 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 Appellant did not present this argument to the district court before entry of judgment, but a defendant may “appeal directly from a judgment of conviction and contend that the record made at the time the plea was entered is inadequate.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
move to withdraw the plea under Rule 15.05 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, or seek withdrawal on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.” (stating that “[a] defendant is free to simply appeal directly from a judgment of conviction and contend that the record made at the time the plea was entered is inadequate in one or more .
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Requiring accuracy “protect[s] the defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could properly be convicted of at trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Edward Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Edward Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dale Allen Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dale Allen Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
While appellant did not raise this issue as a ground for withdrawal in his motion before the district court, “[a] defendant is free to simply appeal directly from a judgment of conviction and contend that the record made at the time the plea was entered is inadequate.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015
Jacob Stephen Brown v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 781 Minn. 2015
Brown v. State (Brown I)
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although Neft did not seek plea withdrawal before the district court, a defendant may “simply appeal directly from a judgment of conviction and contend that the record made at the time the plea was entered is inadequate.”
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robel Belay Kubrom v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robel Belay Kubrom v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Lashaun Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Lashaun Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
n.1 (Minn. App. 2004) (“[A] defendant who challenges a judgment of conviction against him based on an invalid guilty plea .
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Moses Gum Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Moses Gum Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The voluntariness requirement insures that a guilty plea is not entered because of any “improper pressures or inducements.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Shantha Jayapathy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 180, 182 (Minn. 1989).
Shantha Jayapathy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellant argues only that her plea was not “voluntarily entered” because she was “improperly pressured to plead guilty.” “The voluntariness requirement helps insure that the defendant does not plead guilty because of any improper pressures or inducements.”
Matakis v. State 842 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matakis v. State 842 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brown v. State 746 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 2008
Brown v. State 746 N.W.2d 640 Minn. 2008
Broum v. State (Brown I)
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
The voluntariness requirement insures that a guilty plea is not entered because of any “improper pressures or inducements.”
State v. Anyanwu 681 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Anyanwu 681 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brown 606 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2000
State v. Brown 606 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2000
The voluntariness requirement insures that a guilty plea is not entered because of any “improper pressures or inducements.”
Alanis v. State 583 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1998
Alanis v. State 583 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1998
State v. Aviles-Alvarez 561 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Aviles-Alvarez 561 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
The requirement that the plea be entered intelligently is “designed to insure that the defendant understands the charges, the rights being waived and the consequences of the guilty plea.” (citing Trott, d at 251 ).