Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346.

213 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An accurate plea is one that is supported by a proper factual basis, such that there are “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that [the] defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Robert Edwardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald Robert Edwardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1a(c) (defining dwelling as a place where a person lives under an 5 “informal agreement to do so”); (acknowledging that the living arrangements of “an offender who lives in a shelter for three weeks or on a couch in a friend’s apartment for six months” are stable enough to require compliance with the address-registration requirements.)
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Raymond Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Raymond Gustafson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A plea’s factual basis is adequate if there are “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
Otis Elliot Woodson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Otis Elliot Woodson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An adequate factual basis requires “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
Daniel Justin Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Justin Olson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Accuracy requires that the plea be supported by a proper factual basis, that there must be sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Moses Gum Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Moses Gum Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 support a conclusion that [the] defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph McManus Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A plea’s factual basis is adequate if there are “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.”
Maurion Jameal Travis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Maurion Jameal Travis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The factual basis of a plea is inadequate when the defendant makes statements that negate an essential element of the charged crime 4 because such statements are inconsistent with a plea of guilty.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Everly Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Everly Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Accuracy requires that the plea be supported by a proper 6 factual basis, that there must be sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A plea’s factual basis is adequate if there are “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that [the] defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Eugene Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Earl Pittman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Robert Earl Pittman, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Eugene Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The factual basis of a plea is inadequate when the defendant makes statements that negate an essential element of the charged crime because such statements are inconsistent with a plea of guilty.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The supreme court has stated that, “by pleading guilty, a defendant does not waive the argument that the factual basis of his guilt was not established.”
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
see also Lussier, d at 589 (“[T]he plea 3 petition and colloquy may be supplemented by other evidence to establish the factual basis for a plea.”).
Barrow v. State 845 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Barrow v. State 845 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A guilty plea is accurate when it is supported by “sufficient facts on the record to support a conclusion that [the] defendant’s conduct falls within the charge to which he desires to plead guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Brown 835 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Brown 835 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
Barnslater v. State 805 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Barnslater v. State 805 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Milliman 802 N.W.2d 776 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Mycka v. 2003 GMC Envoy, MN Plate RPG535, VIN 1GKDT13S432414651 783 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated that “[t]he objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute’ ” and that “[t]he principal method of determining the legislature’s intent is to rely on the plain meaning of the statute.” ().
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 781 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Molde v. CitiMortgage, Inc. 781 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated, “The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().'
Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Toua Hong Chang v. State 778 N.W.2d 388 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
The supreme court has stated, “The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Hennepin County v. Hill 777 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Our supreme court has stated that “[t]he objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Harlin 771 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Basal 763 N.W.2d 328 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The supreme court has stated, “The objective of all statutory interpretation is ‘to give effect to the intention of the legislature in drafting the statute.’ ” ().
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
State v. Thompson 754 N.W.2d 352 Minn. 2008