Cited by

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

396 citing documents.

Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
Rickert v. State 795 N.W.2d 236 Minn. 2011
It is well established that a “defendant, by his plea of guilty, in effect judicially admit[s] the allegations contained in the complaint.” see also Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223 , 47 S.Ct.
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Eller 780 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, (concluding that adequate factual basis for a plea existed in part because, in pleading guilty, the defendant admitted to the facts alleged in the criminal complaint); State v. Hoaglund, 307 Minn. 322 , (considering the contents of the criminal complaint, among other documents i
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
State v. Raleigh 778 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 2010
160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)
Williams v. State 760 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Williams v. State 760 N.W.2d 8 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
-52 (Minn.1983) (noting that defendant’s guilty plea effectively admits allegations in complaint).
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
Munger v. State 749 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2008
Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Anderson v. State 746 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(affirming finding of no promise when defendant’s claim that he was promised probation by defense counsel was negated by the plea petition, by his statements made when he entered his plea, and by his counsel’s testimony).
State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
State v. Theis 742 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 2007
We have recognized three requirements for a valid plea: “it must be accurate, voluntary and intelligent.”
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Typically, a factual basis is established by “askfing] the defendant to express in his own words what happened.”
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
James v. State 699 N.W.2d 723 Minn. 2005
See, e.g., Van Thoumout, 100 F.3d at 594 (citing Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 48 F.3d at 354-55); Correale v. United States, 479 F.2d 944, 950 (1st Cir.1973)
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(discussing requirements of guilty plea).
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
Taylor v. State 670 N.W.2d 584 Minn. 2003
State v. Iverson 664 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2003
State v. Iverson 664 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2003
State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Wukawitz 644 N.W.2d 852 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See U.S. v. Van Thoumout, 100 F.3d 690, 594 (8th Cir. 1996); Corréale v. U.S., 479 F.2d 944, 950 (1st Cir.1973)
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
Kaiser v. State 641 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2002
We held in State v. Trott that “[t]he 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 v. Brown 606 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2000
State v. Brown 606 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2000
See, e.g., Van Thournout, 100 F.3d at 594 (citing Margalli-Olvera v. INS, 43 F.3d at 354-55 ); Correale v. United States, 479 F.2d 944, 950 (1st Cir.1973)
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Coauette 601 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Smith v. State 596 N.W.2d 661 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
1; (noting valid guilty plea must be accurate, voluntary, and intelligent).
Vernlund v. State 589 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Vernlund v. State 589 N.W.2d 307 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Another benefit of the accuracy requirement is “assisting the court in determining whether the plea is intelligently entered * * *.”
Berkow v. State 573 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Berkow v. State 573 N.W.2d 91 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
A plea is “intelligently” entered if the defendant “understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the consequences of his plea.”
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
State v. Bishop 545 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Bishop 545 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Ecker 524 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1994
State v. Ecker 524 N.W.2d 712 Minn. 1994
See also North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 , 91 S.Ct.
Shorter v. State 511 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1994
Shorter v. State 511 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 1994
First, he asserts that his plea did not meet the prerequisites to a