Cited by

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

112 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Clemente Ramirez-Diaz Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While the fair-and-just standard “is less demanding than the manifest injustice standard,” a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea before sentencing, and may not withdraw a guilty plea “for simply any reason.”
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Lynn Tjoens Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While the fair-and-just standard “is less demanding than the manifest injustice standard,” a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea before sentencing, and may not withdraw a guilty plea “for simply any reason.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Bernard Zuckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review a district court’s decision to deny a plea-withdrawal motion for abuse of discretion, “reversing only in the ‘rare case.’” Raleigh, d at 97 ().
State of Minnesota v. Abass Warsame Mumin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Frank Henry Stanhope Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We ordinarily review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion, but S.L.S.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua David Wipper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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. Terry Lee Allford Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review a district court’s decision regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Michael Baumchen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry Davila Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tylynne Lashawn Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Semaj Williams v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(rejecting the notion of accepting plea withdrawals for any reason or without good reason at any time before sentence is imposed).
State of Minnesota v. Stanley Allen Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Edward Fisherman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he ‘ultimate decision’ of whether to allow withdrawal under the ‘[fair-and-just]’ standard 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 [district] court abused its discretion.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rudolph Gordon Cooper Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We review a district court’s decision regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the ‘rare case.’” (), review denied (Minn. Dec.
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Id.; see 6 (stating that DeZeler does not apply to a case where a defendant was unaware of a collateral consequence).
State of Minnesota v. Giavonte Dominique Foulks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dale Allen Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea before sentencing because such an absolute right “would undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 841 (Minn. App. 2013) (), review denied (Minn. May 21, 2013).
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “defendants may not withdraw their guilty pleas for simply any reason before a sentence is imposed,” Farnsworth, d at 372, because allowing defendants to withdraw a guilty plea for any reason and at any time before sentencing would “undermine the integrity of the plea-taking process.”
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason Wade Hostutler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION The decision to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing is left to the discretion of the district court, and will only be reversed “in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Erick Antwan Casey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An appellate court will reverse a district court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw under the fair-and-just standard only in a “rare case.”
State of Minnesota v. Green Isiah Kelly, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The decision whether to permit 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 case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Everly Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
2; (stating that a district court’s decision whether to permit withdrawal under the fair- and-just standard “will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion”).
Shantha Jayapathy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
After sentencing, a district court must permit withdrawal of a guilty plea if “withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crisler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A defendant may be permitted to withdraw a plea before sentencing when “it is fair and just to do so.” see Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Johosephat Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A district court’s decision regarding plea withdrawal will be reversed only in the rare case in which the appellate court can fairly conclude that the [district] court abused its discretion.”
State v. Cubas 838 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
We review a district court’s decision regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the fair-and-just standard for an abuse of discretion, reversing only in the “rare case.”
State v. Crump 826 N.W.2d 838 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
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 v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(discussing need to protect integrity of pleas).
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Streiff 673 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2004
(requirement to register as a predatory offender); (deportation); (deportation); (loss of employment).
Butala v. State 664 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 2003
“[T]he ultimate decision of whether to allow withdrawal under the 'fair and just’ standard 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.’ ” *339 ().
Bolinger v. State 647 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
When compared with the prospect of deportation and other consequences that have been held collateral in Minnesota courts, see, -66 (Minn.1989) (concluding that forced resignation from a position as officer of a corporation is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea); Rodriguez, d at 825 (concluding that loss of right to possess a firearm is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea); Washburn, d at 246 (concluding that
State v. Henthorne 637 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Washburn 602 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(noting defendant does not have absolute right to withdraw plea, but rather must show manifest injustice).
State v. Rodriguez 590 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(stating ignorance of collateral consequence does not entitle defendant to withdraw guilty plea).
Barragan v. State 583 N.W.2d 571 Minn. 1998