Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Doughman, 340 N.W.2d 348.

49 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Rashad Lavonte Lenear Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mickela Joy Vredenburg Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“What is important is not the order or the wording of the questions, but whether the record .
State of Minnesota v. Alfredo Torrez Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Shawn Christopher Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Shawn Christopher Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Furthermore, “[a] court may weigh a defendant’s criminal history in evaluating whether his guilty plea was knowing and intelligent.” d 348, 350 (Minn. App. 1983), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Brent William Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Brent William Kruse Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To the contrary, we have 6 “recognize[d] the demanding circumstances in which district court judges function and have rejected arguments that district courts must comport with rule 15’s lists of questions and advisories verbatim.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lavell Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Julian Leon Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
1, it is critical that “the record is adequate to establish that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily given.” (holding that “[w]hat is important is not the order or the wording of the questions, but whether the 2 Jumping Eagle, d at 43 had a similar fact pattern in that the conditional-release terms were not imposed until five years after the sentencing hearing.
State of Minnesota v. Brock Alan Lawrence Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that “[w]hat is important is not the order or the wording of the questions, but whether the record .
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Christian Bolton-Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The district court satisfied the requirements of rule 15.01, subd ivision 1(5), regarding Bolton-Hernandez’s current circumstances by asking him if he had any mental impairment that affected his ability “to understand what you’re doing today.” Moreover, as Bolton-Hernandez acknowledges, “failure to follow Rule 15.01 does not necessarily make a guilty plea invalid.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Keith Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
whether the record is adequate to establish that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily given.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Adrian Dominque Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Bell acknowledges that “failure to interrogate a defendant as set forth in rule 15.01 or to fully inform him of all constitutional rights does not invalidate a guilty plea.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Bacon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 15.01 verbatim is not fatal” because “[w]hat is important is not the order or the wording of the questions, but whether the record is adequate to establish that the plea was intelligently and voluntarily given.” rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
S’Emaj Avyiair Okongwu v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Doughman , (citation omitted), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Matt Monoleetio Vogel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
P. 15.01, and Minnesota case law establish that failure to interrogate a defe ndant as set forth in [r]ule 15.01 or to fully inform him of all constitutional rights does not invalidate a guilty plea.” State v. Doughman , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Calvin Lee Dixon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court also “may weigh a defendant’s experience with the criminal justice system when evaluating whether his plea was knowing and intelligent.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
Kenny Lee Reed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
P. 15.01, and Minnesota case law establish that failure to interrogate a defendant as set forth in Rule 15.01 or to fully inform [a defendant] of all constitutional rights does not invalidate a guilty plea.” State v. Doughman , d 348, 351 (Minn. App. 1983), review denied (Minn. Mar.
Wilson Nduri Tindi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
does not invalidate a guilty plea.” State v. Doughman , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
-53 (Minn.App.1983) (holding that district court’s failure to follow rule 15.01’s questions verbatim does not make guilty plea invalid and is not, therefore, a mani *384 fest injustice).
State v. Kaiser 469 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1991
State v. Kaiser 469 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1991
The court of appeals dealt with such a pet.
State v. Wiley 420 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Wiley 420 N.W.2d 234 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
1787 , 76 L.Ed.2d 355 (1983); (question is whether the record adequately establishes a voluntary and intelligent plea).
State v. Newcombe 412 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Newcombe 412 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Nelson v. State 407 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Brant 407 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Brant 407 N.W.2d 696 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lallier v. State 403 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lallier v. State 403 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Marshall v. State 395 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brodell v. State 393 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Brodell v. State 393 N.W.2d 674 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Herme v. State 384 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Herme v. State 384 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lopez 379 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lopez 379 N.W.2d 633 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Bryant 378 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Bryant 378 N.W.2d 108 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Garritsen 371 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Garritsen 371 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Rau 367 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Rau 367 N.W.2d 613 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See, petition for rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
Doughman v. State 351 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Doughman v. State 351 N.W.2d 671 Minn. Ct. App. 1984