Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573.

103 citing documents.

State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In rejecting the alleged invalidity of Lopez’s plea, the district court relied primarily on the distinction between the direct and collateral consequence of a
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The intelligence requirement is meant to ensure “that the defendant understands the charges, his or her rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.”
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Oldenburg v. State 763 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Oldenburg v. State 763 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
A plea is intelligent when the defendant “understands the charges, his or her rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.”
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Black v. State 725 N.W.2d 772 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
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
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Anyanwu 681 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Anyanwu 681 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
review denied (Minn. Nov.
Stone v. State 675 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Stone v. State 675 N.W.2d 631 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
James v. State 674 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
(requirement to register as a predatory offender); (deportation); (deportation); (loss of employment).
State v. Abdisalan 661 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Abdisalan 661 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
The volun-tariness requirement insures that the guilty plea is not in response to improper inducements or pressures, and “the intelligent requirement insures that the defendant understands the charges, his or her rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.”
Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Christopherson 644 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Christopherson 644 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mendoza 638 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-79 (Minn.1998); -73 (Minn.1998) (stating that deportation alone is not a manifest injustice requiring postconviction relief).
State v. Henthorne 637 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Henthorne 637 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kaiser v. State 621 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Kaiser v. State 621 N.W.2d 49 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
State v. Prabhudail 602 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Prabhudail 602 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(deportation is collateral consequence of criminal conviction).
State v. Rodriguez 590 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Rodriguez 590 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Berkow v. State 583 N.W.2d 562 Minn. 1998