Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Robledo-Kinney, 615 N.W.2d 25.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Elsa E. Segura Minn. 2024
616 (evidence of bias); (“Evidence of bias of a witness is admissible to attack the credibility of a 18 If the protections of Rule 410 apply, “[t]here is no impeachment exception to the general rule that statements made in connection with plea negotiations are inadmissible.”
State of Minnesota v. Devin Lee Arola Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Devin Lee Arola Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 25, 32 (Minn. 2000); Brown, d at 674-75; Kochevar, d at 687-88.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
On appeal, “[a] district court’s findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Brown , (reviewing a district court’s determination of the terms of a plea agreement for clear error).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that we review a district court’s findings of fact regarding plea agreements for clear error).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, -31 (Minn. 2000) ( holding a comment by the court that a defendant’s statement “[a]t best .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Abraham Tony Dolo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Robledo-Kinney , -31 (Minn. 2000).
Antonio Xavier Daniels, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Robledo- 6 Kinney
A16-0880 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Xavier Jerome Buckhanan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Xavier Jerome Buckhanan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
for the proposition that "the [district] court has the discretion to withdraw its acceptance of the plea agreement” "[i]f the district court learns of something after initially accepting a plea agreement, but prior to sentencing, that causes the court to believe that the interests of justice are not serve
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
State v. Pendleton 759 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2009
A district court judge is only required to name specific accomplices in the jury instructions if the facts are “undisputed or compel but a single inference.”
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Cf. State v. Sha, 292 Minn. 182, 183 , (applying the common-law rule excluding withdrawn pleas to a situation where defendant blurted out “I want to plead guilty, I want to get this over with” at his arraignment); -30 (Minn.2000) (holding that a statement made to investigators after a tentative plea agreement was reached fell within the purview of Minn. R. Evid.
ROBLEDO-KINNEY v. State 751 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2008
ROBLEDO-KINNEY v. State 751 N.W.2d 112 Minn. 2008
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 732 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2007
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
State v. Colvin 645 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2002
Robledo-Kinney v. State 637 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2002
Robledo-Kinney v. State 637 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2002
State v. Johnson 617 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Johnson 617 N.W.2d 440 Minn. Ct. App. 2000