Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rhodes, 675 N.W.2d 323.
- State of Minnesota v. Dean Ryan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Dean Ryan Kline Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But interpretation and enforcement of plea agreements involve issues of law that we review de novo.” (citation omitted), cert.
- Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Anthony Lenard Vinegar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Jeremy Shane Zimmermann v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- 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
(stating that when the defendant is on notice of a conditional-release term before sentencing by way of reference to the term in the pre-sentence investigation report, the defendant cannot later withdraw a guilty plea on that basis); (upholding t
- Xavier Jerome Buckhanan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Xavier Jerome Buckhanan v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Steven Daniel Waldor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Steven Daniel Waldor v. State of Minnesota
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
y unfulfillable promise because defendant was not made aware of applicable mandatory conditional-release term when he entered his guilty plea or when he was sentenced and concluding therefore that plea agreement was not knowingly and understandingly made and that defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea or have the agreement 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 a
- Joseph Jermaine Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Joseph Jermaine Henderson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Maurion Jameal Travis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Maurion Jameal Travis v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Jeffrey Charles Morris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Jeffrey Charles Morris v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Uselman v. State 831 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
- Uselman v. State 831 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
- State v. Batchelor 786 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. Batchelor
786 N.W.2d 319
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Although the determination of what the parties agreed to in a plea bargain is a factual inquiry for the district court, “the interpretation and enforcement of plea agreements present legal issues that we review de novo,” James, d at 728 .
- State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
- State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
- Oldenburg v. State 763 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- Oldenburg v. State 763 N.W.2d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
- State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
- State v. Miller 754 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2008
- State v. Brown 709 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- State v. Brown 709 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
- James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
-
James v. State
699 N.W.2d 723
Minn. 2005
“Determining what the parties agreed to in a plea bargain is a factual inquiry for the postconviction court to resolve.” cert, denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct.
- State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Byron 683 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2004