Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Trott, 338 N.W.2d 248.

396 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Omar Taha Yaseen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Omar Taha Yaseen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The purpose of the requirement that the plea be intelligent is to insure that the defendant understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.”
Darek Jon Nelson v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2016
Darek Jon Nelson v. State of Minnesota 880 N.W.2d 852 Minn. 2016
Raleigh, d at 94-95; -45, 747 (Minn. 1994); State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322, 326
State of Minnesota v. Steven Francis Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Edward Morey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Francis Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jeffrey Edward Morey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, (“The record also contains a copy of the complaint and defendant, by his plea of guilty, in effect judicially admitted the allegations contained in the complaint.”); (“[T]he sworn complaint, which was part of the record at the time of the plea
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lee Hough Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Larry Lee Hough Minn. Ct. App. 2016
I. Hough contends that his “guilty plea is invalid as inaccurate because it is based on an insufficient factual basis.” “The main purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Tylynne Lashawn Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tylynne Lashawn Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The intelligence requirement ensures that a defendant “understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.”
State of Minnesota v. Pov Beng Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Pov Beng Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The main purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Lamar-Seccer Pierson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Here, appellant argues that his guilty plea was not accurately made because he failed to acknowledge that a fact-finder would likely find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.1 “The main purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In evaluating the adequacy of the factual basis for a guilty plea, the supreme court has considered record contents including an off-duty police officer’s sworn complaint, “the allegations contained in the complaint” and “pictures 4 of the victim’s injuries,” “sworn statements and testimony of the victims introduced at earlier hearings,” “[t]he state’s evidence, as summarized by the prosecutor” at the plea hearing, 686 (Minn. 1979); evidence introduced during
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Theodore Hoshal Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Theodore Hoshal Minn. Ct. App. 2016
To be valid, a guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary and intelligent.”
State of Minnesota v. Stanley Allen Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stanley Allen Brown, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The purpose of the requirement that the plea be intelligent is to insure that the defendant understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.”
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Terrell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Terrell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The main 4 purpose of the accuracy requirement is to protect a defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Taylor Rod Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Scott Andrew Marcucci v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Scott Andrew Marcucci v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joe Maria Vento Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joe Maria Vento Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A constitutionally valid guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent (i.e., knowingly and understandingly made).”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Joseph Knebel Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The [district] court should not accept the plea unless the record supports the conclusion that the defendant actually committed an offense at least as serious as the crime to which he is pleading guilty.” -52 (Minn. 1983).
Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The purpose of the requirement that the plea be intelligent is to ensure that the defendant understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.” 251 (Minn. 1983).
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Crystal Marie Vodinelich v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The court should not accept the plea unless the record supports the conclusion that the defendant actually committed an offense at least as serious as the crime to which he is pleading guilty.” -52 (Minn. 1983).
Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Francisco Herrera Sanchez v. State of Minnesota 868 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Trent Johnson 867 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A guilty plea is valid if it is “accurate, voluntary and intelligent.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Earl Anthony Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that a defendant’s plea had a sufficient factual basis because, in part, the record contained a copy of the complaint, and the defendant in effect judicially admitted to the allegations in the complaint by pleading guilty); (
Dustin Alan Edsill v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Dustin Alan Edsill v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The [district] court should not accept the plea unless the record supports the conclusion that the defendant actually committed an offense at least as serious as the crime to which he is pleading guilty.” –52 (Minn. 1983).
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert William Neft Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that an adequate factual basis existed when the “defendant, by his plea of guilty, in effect judicially admitted the allegations contained in the complaint”).
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chauncey Lanell Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2015