Cited by

First, the registration requirement is “an expression of a policy statement— ‘society has the right to know of predatory offenders’ presence … in order to protect itself.’ ” (brackets omitted) (quoting Doe v. Poritz, 662 A.2d 367, 373 (N.J.

“[A] direct consequence is one that has a definite, immediate and automatic effect on the range of a defendant’s punishment.” Kaiser v. State , n.6 (Minn. 2002).

“A direct consequence is one that has a definite, immediate and automatic effect on the range of a defendant’s punishment.” d 693, 697 (Minn. App. 2004) (d 900, 904 n.6 (Minn. 2002)).

“[A] direct consequence is one that has a definite, immediate and automatic effect on the range of a defendant’s punishment.” n.6 (Minn. 2002).

(distinguishing between direct and collateral consequences of a guilty plea).

A 12 collateral consequence—a consequence that does “not flow definitely, immediately, and automatically”—is “not punishment.” (), rev. denied (Minn. May 21, 2013).

In contrast, collateral consequences are those that “serve a substantially different purpose” other than to punish and are “civil and regulatory in nature.”

at 568 ( n.6 (Minn. 2002)).

(holding that the statutory duty to register as a predatory offender is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea because it is not part of defendant’s punishment).

A party may withdraw a guilty plea after sentencing when it “is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.”

(concluding that the duty to register as a predatory offender is not punitive, but instead is a regulatory, collateral consequence); Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd.

17 In Kaiser v. State, the supreme court stated that “[s]ex offender registration is a direct consequence of the offender’s guilty plea if for no other reason than [it is mandated by statute].”

27, 2022); (explaining that “direct consequences are those related to punishment that flow definitely, immediately and automatically from the plea” and include “the maximum sentence and fine”).

“The duty to register as a predatory offender is a regulatory rather than punitive consequence.”

(defining “collateral consequences” as those that do not punish and are not intended to punish but that do serve the interest of public safety); (explaining that “direct consequences are those related to punishment that flow definitely, immediately and automatically from the plea” and include “the maximum sentence and fine”).

Collateral consequences, in contrast, are those which do not punish, “‘serve a substa ntially different purpose ’ than to punish, and ‘are imposed in the interest of public safety.’” Bell, d at 101 (d 900, 905 (Minn. 2002) ).

Rather, the defendant must be aware of the direct consequences of his plea, which are those consequences that are “definite, immediate and automatic.” d 900, 903, 907 (Minn. 2002).

Collateral consequences, by contrast, are those that do not punish, “serve a substantially different purpose” than to punish, a nd “are imposed in the interest of public safety.” Kaiser v. State

To be valid, a guilty plea must be “accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”

“A defendant need not be advised of every consequence for his plea to be intelligent” and “[i]gnorance of a collateral consequence does not entitle a criminal defendant to withdraw a guilty plea.” -04 (Minn. 2020) (emphasis omitted).

See, -04, 907 (Minn. 2002) (stating defendant must be informed of direct consequences but not collateral consequences).

Kaiser v. State , -04 (Minn. 2002).

To be valid, a guilty plea must be “accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”

A manifest injustice occurs when a guilty plea is invalid, meaning it is not “accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”

Regarding the intelligence of the plea, a defendant need not be advised of every consequence of a plea, and need only be advised of “direct consequences.” -04 (Minn. 2002).

d 900, 903 (Minn. 2002) (“Public policy favors the finality of judgments .

See Kaiser v. State , , 904 (Minn. 2002) ("The court of appeals was correct ...

To permit otherwise would, no doubt, undermine the purpose of the registration statute, which is “ to keep law enforcement informed as to a predatory offender’s whereabouts.” (“The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that the registration statute reflects a policy that society has the right to know the location of predatory offenders, not in order to punish them, but to protect the public.”), revi

To be valid, a guilty plea must be “accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”

To be valid, a guilty plea must be “accurate, voluntary, and intelligent.”

The direct consequences of a guilty plea, such as the maximum sentence and f ine for the offense, “flow definitely, immediately, and automatically from the guilty plea.” Kaiser v. State

The direct consequences of a plea “are those which flow definitely, immediately, and automatically from the guilty plea.” (quotation omitted).

Kaiser v. State , review denied (Minn. Feb.

In assessing whether the registration statute is penal in nature under Mendoza-Martinez , we are guided by three cases that applied this framework to predatory-offender statutes: ; and Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 , 128 S.Ct.

Kaiser v. State , (M inn.