Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Ashman, 608 N.W.2d 853.

45 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tieshawn Stevie Fields Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Tieshawn Stevie Fields Minn. Ct. App. 2026
d 853, 858 (Minn. 2000) (noting that the terms of the defendant’s plea agreement were clearly expressed at the plea hearing); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lamontice Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lamontice Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See , United States v. Swisshelm, 848 F.3d 1157, 1159 (8th Cir. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Criticized State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“In Minnesota plea agreements have been analogized to contracts .
Dinesh Mongar, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Cocherell notes that, “in close cases, plea agreements should be construed to favor defendants.” In re Ashman
E Xiong, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
He relies on to support his argument.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
13 1; -60 (Minn. App. 1994).
A20-0458 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In Minnesota plea agreements have been analogized to contracts and principles of contract law are applied to determine their terms.” In re Ashman , .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“In Minnesota[,] plea agreements have been analogized to contracts and principles of contract law are applied to determine their terms.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 853, 854 (Minn. 2000).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“In Minnesota plea agreements have been analogized to contracts and principles of contract law are applied to determine their terms.” In re Ashman
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concluding that “the terms of the plea agreement were clearly and unequivocally expressed” at the plea hearing); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Rae Guillette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Rae Guillette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In Minnesota[,] plea agreements have been analogized to contracts and principles of contract law are applied to determine their terms.”
Jesse Lee Paskey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jesse Lee Paskey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[I]n close cases, plea agreements should be construed to favor defendants.”
State of Minnesota v. William James Chestnut Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William James Chestnut Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Arnold Lind-Pashina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Arnold Lind-Pashina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nevertheless, “in close cases, plea agreements should be construed to favor defendants.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Armstrong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Thus, “in close cases, plea agreements should be construed to favor defendants.”
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
Kenneth Ernest Poland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kenneth Ernest Poland v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In Minnesota, plea agreements have been analogized to contracts and principles of contract law are applied to determine their terms.”
State of Minnesota v. Sheikh Nyane Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling 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
Plea agreements “have been analogized to contracts and principles of contract law are applied to determine their terms.”
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Martinez-Mendoza 804 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2011
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007