Cited by

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

396 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Eric Peter Elijio Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eric Peter Elijio Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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.”
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Abshir Abtidon Barrow v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
Jason Donald Matakis v. State of Minnesota 862 N.W.2d 33 Minn. 2015
Robyn Lynn Hager v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joel Asiago Nyansikera Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.”
Robyn Lynn Hager v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that the defendant’s assertion that defense counsel promised him probation was negated by the record and that “[c]learly, therefore, the trial court was justified in finding that no such promise had been made).
State of Minnesota v. Abdul Khalid Hakeem Malik El Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Abdul Khalid Hakeem Malik El Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To be a valid, a guilty plea “must be accurate, voluntary and intelligent (i.e., knowingly and understandingly made).” d 712, 716 (Minn. 1994) ().
Douglas Neil Raasch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Douglas Neil Raasch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The voluntariness requirement ensures “that the defendant is not pleading guilty because of improper pressures.”
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lynell Richard Ellison v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Lee King Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Accurate “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.”
Oji Konata Markham v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Moses Gum Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Moses Gum Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jermale Jermar Kling Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Laura Barreto Renteria v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kai Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The intelligence requirement ensures that a defendant understands the charges against him, the rights he is waiving, and the consequences of his plea.” Raleigh, d at 96 ().
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.” (stating that “[o]ther possible benefits of the accuracy requirement include assisting the court in determining whether the plea is intelligently entered and facilitating the rehabilitation of 6 the defendant”).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Wayne Behrens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The accuracy requirement protects the “defendant from pleading guilty to a more serious 4 offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.”
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Charles Chuck Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dusty Lee Littledog Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Anthony Eugene Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Eugene Quinn Minn. Ct. App. 2014
It is true that a “defendant, by his plea of guilty, in effect judicially admit[s] the allegations contained in the complaint.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Budreau Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Evalyn Lia Bheaanu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(relying on the complaint in examining the plea because the defendant, by pleading guilty, “in effect judicially admitted the allegations contained in the complaint”).
Barrow v. State 845 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Barrow v. State 845 N.W.2d 555 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although a defendant’s agreement cannot in itself prove that the statutory elements of a crime have been met, (describing the district court’s role in supplementing a defendant’s admissions at a plea hearing with additional questions and evidence), the record supports his concession.
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Weyaus 836 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.” (“[A] board of this nature qualifies as a dangerous weapon if so used.”); see, -18 (Minn.1981) (pool cue); (cowboy boots); State v. Born, 280 Minn. 306, 306-08 , -85 (1968) (fists and feet).
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
Lussier v. State 821 N.W.2d 581 Minn. 2012
(concluding that the record as a whole, which included the complaint and photos of the victim’s injuries taken at the hospital, was sufficient to establish factual basis for guilty plea); State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322 , 327 n. 9, , 6 n. 9 (1976) (holding that the record as a whole, whi
Barnslater v. State 805 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Barnslater v. State 805 N.W.2d 910 Minn. Ct. App. 2011