Cited by

(noting 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 of these respects”).

But “[a] defendant may challenge the constitutional validity of a guilty plea for the first time on direct appeal.” d 693, 696 (Minn. App. 2024) ().

d 391, 399 (Minn. 2024).

(concluding that the defendant was entitled to plea withdrawal because the plea “was induced by an unfulfilled promise”); (asserting a guilty plea may not be based on improper inducement); (holding that a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea when the state breaches a plea agreement), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

d 103, 108 (Minn. App. 2023).

(“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 of these respects.”).

(stating a defendant is free 5 to appeal from a judgment of conviction and argue that the record at the time of the plea was inadequate); (

“The voluntariness requirement helps [e]nsure that the defendant does not plead guil ty because of any improper pressures or inducements.”

Id.; see also, (concludi ng that a plea was intelligent because the defendant adequately understood all three aspects of his plea, even though “the interrogation of defendant was not a model interrogation”).

(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” ).

(“A defendant is free to simply appeal directly from a judgment of conviction and contend that the record made at the time of the plea was entered is inadequate” to establish that a plea was inaccurate, involuntary, or unintelligent).