Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wukawitz, 662 N.W.2d 517.

138 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kelvin Lenar Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cody John Opheim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cody John Opheim Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian William Meger Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Michael Smith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Joseph Michael Smith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, ex rel., Branden Lee Pollard v. Tom Roy, Commissioner of Corrections 878 N.W.2d 341 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Three years after Koperski was decided, our supreme court stated that “the conditional release term cannot begin prior to the inmate’s release from prison.”
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Arnold Lind-Pashina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brittany Ann Vacko Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When a guilty plea is induced by an unfulfilled promise, “the voluntariness of the plea is drawn into question, and due process considerations require that the defendant be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Arnold Lind-Pashina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When a guilty plea is induced by unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises, the voluntariness of the plea is drawn into question.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Leroy Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nonetheless, in rare cases, further construction beyond a statute’s plain and unambiguous language becomes necessary if “the plain meaning leads to absurd or unreasonable results that depart from the purpose of the statute.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Theodore Hoshal Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Theodore Hoshal Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (holding that a district court may allow a defendant to withdraw a plea “in those limited circumstances where imposition of a conditional-release term after sentencing would violate the plea agreement”).
State of Minnesota v. Stanley Allen Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stanley Allen Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When a guilty plea is induced by unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises, the voluntariness of the plea is drawn into question.”
James Darnell Posey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Darnell Posey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When a guilty plea is induced by unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises, the voluntariness of the plea is drawn into question.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Statutory construction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo.”
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Vinegar argues that “[t]he addition of the ten-year conditional release term violated [his] understanding of the guilty plea agreement.” -26 (Minn. 2003), the supreme court concluded that when a conditional- release term is imposed after a defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with a fixed upper limit of time to serve, the defendant must be permitted to withdraw the 5 guilty plea or
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., James, d at 725-26, 730; 526-29 (Minn. 2003); -45 (Minn. 2000); -82 (Minn. 1998).
Robel Belay Kubrom v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Robel Belay Kubrom v. State of Minnesota 863 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-25 (Minn. 2003) (describing the leading cases addressing sentences amended to add conditional-release terms).
State of Minnesota v. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that plea withdrawal should be the first option, but if the state would be unduly prejudiced by withdrawal, the district court may modify the sentence); (remanding for the district court to either allow appellant to withdraw his plea
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The primary objective in the interpretation of a statute is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.”
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The intelligence requirement is designed to ensure “that the defendant understands the charges, his or her rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lukas Roy Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Statutory construction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo.”
Steven Daniel Waldor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Daniel Waldor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
reement modified in way that did not violate agreement); d 323, 325, 327 (Minn. 2004) (reversing holding of court of appeals that defendant’s plea was not intelligently entered and sentence must be modified, because postconviction court could infer that defendant understood that conditional-release term would be mandatory addition to plea bargain); (reasoning that defendant’s plea was induced by promise of maximum executed sentence and concluding that addition of conditional-release term violate
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he intelligent requirement insures that the defendant understands the charges, his or her 5 rights under the law, and the consequences of pleading guilty.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Wayne Blaschka Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Wayne Blaschka Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Patterson 819 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Patterson 819 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
5(a).” In December 2010, appellant moved to withdraw *464 and the state agreed that the plea withdrawal was appropriate.
State v. Hansen 805 N.W.2d 915 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Retzlaff 807 N.W.2d 437 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
In State v. Wukawitz, for example, the supreme court indicated that further construction beyond the plain and unambiguous statutory language is necessary if “the plain meaning leads to absurd or unreasonable results that depart from the purpose of the statute.”