Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Ryan v. Bagne, 434 N.W.2d 263.

112 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Branson Dean Moen Minn. Ct. App. 2026
a criminal-sexual-conduct case, the supreme court affirmed the denial of a plea-withdrawal motion and, in discussing the prejudice requirement of the fair-and-just standard, stated that the district court “ was not unjustified in considering the interests of the victim.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Tieshawn Stevie Fields Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Sarah Nicole Englund v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Underlying the rule is the notion that giving a defendant an absolute right to withdraw a plea before sentence would undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
State of Minnesota v. Mayson Kellon Lueck Minn. Ct. App. 2024
This court reviews the denial of a motion for plea withdrawal under the fair -and- just standard for an abuse of discretion and will reverse a district court’s decision “only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Larry Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Paris Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989)).
State of Minnesota v. Henry Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We review a district court’s denial of a plea-withdrawal motion under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.” Raleigh, d at 97.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Lee Schober Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“We review a district court’s decision to deny a withdrawal motion for abuse of discretion, reversing only 7 in the ‘rare case.’” Raleigh, d at 97 ()
State of Minnesota v. Eric Dow Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Appellate courts review “a district court’s decision to deny a withdrawal motion for abuse of discretion, reversing only in the rare case.” (quotation omitted); -66 (Minn. 1989) (rejecting more lenient approach to presentence guilty plea withdrawals).
State of Minnesota v. Micah Montre Marrison Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court reviews a district court’s decision to deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea 4 under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.” see also Raleigh, d at 97.
Andrew Audstin Emerson Brown v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Shevirio Kavirion Childs -Young Minn. Ct. App. 2023
This court reviews a district court ’s decision to deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.” see also Raleigh, d at 97.
State of Minnesota v. Abdul Hakim Omar Erbob Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Henry Baion Cummings Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Second, in analyzing whether Baion presented a fair-and-just reason for withdrawal.
State of Minnesota v. Renard Lydell Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Abdullahi Mohamud Hussen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Appellate courts review a district court’s decision to deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.” Raleigh, d at 97.
State of Minnesota v. Daryl Wayne Moran, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Darwin Eldridge Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
We review the district court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, and only the “rare case” merits reversal
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Leonida Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Jones , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
Hassan Isak Omar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Reversal is appropriate only in the “rare case.”
Tony Ray Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Harold Badillo Chaparro Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Doing so would “undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Dale Klitzke Minn. Ct. App. 2021
8 Allowing a defendant to withdraw a guilty pl ea “for any reason or without good reason” would “undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
State of Minnesota v. Zittie Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Junting He Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ray Quin, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Felix Kasper Piah v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The decision to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea “is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Bounlieng Moon Chaokhio Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Lewonda Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. John Allen Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Underlying this rule is the principle that “giving a defendant an absolute right to withdraw a plea before sentence would undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
State of Minnesota v. Glenn David Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that district court “was not unjustified in considering the interests of the victim”).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Forrest Towle Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Nicholas 924 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Kim v. State , , 266 (Minn. 1989) (quotation omitted); see also Mader , 251 F.3d at 1104-05 (explaining that allowing a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea without a fair and just reason "would degrade the otherwise serious act of pleading guilty into something akin to a move in a game of chess" (quotation omitted) ).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Wilford Domier Minn. Ct. App. 2019
We review a district court’s denial of such a motion for an abuse of discretion, and will only reverse such a denial in a “rare case.” Kim v. State
State of Minnesota v. David Joseph Madrigal Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quotation and citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zacharia Dahir Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The decision to grant a motion to withdraw a plea “is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can 5 fairly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Joseph Bosto Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A district court has discretion to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing and its decision will only be reversed if an appellate court “can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Larry Donnell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Allowing a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea “for any reason or without good reason” would “undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Mathew Erickson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The ultimate decision is left to the sound discretion of the [district] court, and it will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [distric t] court abused its discretion.” d 263, 266 (Minn. 1989).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Ranzy Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Tanka Nath Upreti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N A district court has discretion to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing and its decision will only be reversed if an appellate court can “fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Russell Patchen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The ultimate decision is left to the sound discretion of the [district] court, and it will be reversed only in the rare case in which th e appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. John James Jackson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“We review a district court’s decision to deny a withdrawal motion for abuse of discretion, reversing only in the ‘rare case.’” (quoting Kim v. State , ).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Michael DiMartino Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Kim v. State, 10 (considering victim’s interests in weighing prejudice).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Dean Alley Minn. Ct. App. 2017
a plea at any time before sentence if it is fair and just to do so.” The rule provides that “[t]he [district] court must give due consideration to the reasons advanced by the defendant in support of the motion [to withdraw] and any prejudice the granting of the motion would cause the prosecution by reason of actions taken in reliance upon the defendant’s plea.” Id.; see also Kim v. State , (“If a guilty plea can be withdrawn for any reason or without good reason at any time before sentence is im
State of Minnesota v. Mark Alan Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Jacka Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Ellis-Strong 899 N.W.2d 531 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The ultimate decision to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea is left to the sound discretion of the district •court, “and it will be reversed only in the rare ease in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Wynn Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Timothy Reiten Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A district court has discretion when determining whether or not to allow a guilty plea withdrawal under the “fair and just” standard, and this court will reverse only in the “rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the trial court abused its discretion.” 6 Reiten argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he offered new evidence establishing the victim had recanted earlier statements and that Reiten had a medical con