Cited by

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

112 citing documents.

Alanis v. State 583 N.W.2d 573 Minn. 1998
State v. Aviles-Alvarez 561 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Bowen 560 N.W.2d 709 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(defendant not entitled to withdraw guilty plea based on mistaken belief as to collateral effect on his employment).
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
red withdrawal of the guilty plea under the “highly unusual facts of this case” due to incomplete police investigation, defense counsel's inability to locate corroborating witnesses, sentencing court’s failure to question the defendant at the plea hearing and acceptance of the plea based on leading questions, and postconviction court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing) (holding that the defendant, who was questioned thoroughly about the consequences of entering his guilty plea, did not
Perkins v. State 540 N.W.2d 908 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
1; (discussing rule 15.05).
State v. Danh 516 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 1994
Summarizing and clarifying our decision in *544 we said in Kaiser : Kim clearly states that the defendant has the burden of proving that there is a “fair and just” reason for wanting to withdraw his plea and that the trial court “is to give due consideration not just to the reasons advanced by the defendant but to ‘any prejudice the granting of the mot
Shorter v. State 511 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1994
State v. Tuttle 504 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Barnes v. State 489 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Larkins 479 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Kaiser 469 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 1991
discussed infra, was summarized for the court during the attorneys’ arguments, so the court clearly was aware of the two different standards for withdrawal discussed in Kim .
State v. Tyska 448 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the defendant pleaded guilty in return for the dismissal of one count and a gross misdemeanor sentence.