Cited by

“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.

The accuracy requirement of a valid guilty plea protects 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.” ().

“The main purpose of the 5 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.”

“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 v. Trott , d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983); see Williams v. State , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

4 “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.”

The accuracy requirement for a valid guilty plea protects 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.” Theis, d at 649 ().

“The purpose of the requirement that the plea be inte lligent 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.”

Lussier v. State , State v. Trott , –52 (Minn. 1983).

8 testimony of witnesses and statements summarizing the evidence.” State v. Trott

“The purpose of the requirement that the plea be intelligent is to insure that the def endant understands the charges, understands the rights he is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands the 5 consequences of his plea.” State v. Trott

The accuracy re quirement of a valid guilty plea 4 protects a defendant “from plead ing guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.” Theis, d at 649 ().

d 678, 690 (Minn. 1997).

d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983); see Brown, 449 d at 182 (“The voluntariness requirement helps [e]nsure that the defendant does not plead guilty because of any improper pressures or inducements.” ).

See Jones, d at 782 (affirming district court’s denial of a defendant’s presentence motio n to withdraw his guilty plea where the 8 defendant’s stated reasons in support of th e motion contradicted statements made by the defendant at the plea hearing); (affirming district court’s denial of a defe ndant’s postsentence mo tion to withdraw his guilty plea where the defendant’s stated reasons in support of the motion contradicted statements made by the defe ndant at the plea hearing); State v. Lopez

“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.”

that could attach to the concession, and which if known could prompt an objection to the concession.” This argument, however, conflates th e (M inn.

The intelligence requirement guarantees that a defendant “under stands the charges against him, the rights he is waiving, and the c onsequences of his plea.” Raleigh, d at 96 ().

The accuracy requirement is meant “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.”

“The intelligence requiremen t ensures that a defendant understands the charges against him, the rights he is waiving, and the consequences of his plea.” Raleigh, 6 d at 96 ().

See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 750, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1470 (1970) (stating that a guilty plea may not be the product of “overbearing the will of the defendant”); -52 (Minn. 1983) (“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.”); (holding district court erred in acc

-89 (Minn. 2012) ((“[T]he plea petition and colloquy may be supplemented by other evidence to establish the factual basis for the plea.”) ; (indicating that a defendant who has pleaded guilty “in effect, judicially admitted the allegat ions contained in the complaint”); Rosendahl v. State, __ N.W.2d __, __, 2021 WL 416699, at *1 (Minn. App. Feb.

“T he defendant’s statement usually will suggest questions to the court which then, with the assistance of counsel, can interrogate the defendan t in further detail.” State v. Trott

An intelligent guilty plea is a plea that is “knowingly and understandingly made.”

The purpose of requiring guilty pleas to be voluntary is to ensure that the defendant “is not pleading guilty because of improper pressures.”

be sworn and questioned regarding whether the defendant understands the precise offense to which he is pleading guilty); (stating that a “defendant can hardly be said to understand the consequences of his plea when the count to which he has pled is a moving target subject to later amendment by the state” (quotation omitted)); (stating that a plea must be intelligent to ensure “that the defendant understands the charges, understands the rights h e is waiving by pleading guilty, and understands th

“T he defendant’s statement usually will suggest questions to the court which then, with the assistance of counsel, can 4 interrogate the defendan t in further detail.” State v. Trott

This re quirement “protect[s] a defenda nt from pleading guilty to a more serious offense than he could be convicted of were he to insist on his right to trial.”

“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.”

“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 v. Trott

The defendant’s explanation “usually will suggest que stions to the court which then, with the assistance of counsel, can interrogate the defendant in further detail.”

Lussier, d at 589 (citing State v. Trott , (permitting the use of the whole record, incl uding the complaint a nd photographs, to establish the factual basis for a guilty plea)).1 Valdez was convicted of domestic assau lt—fear, under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd.

See State v. Trott , see also Sanchez v. State , aff’d on other grounds , ).

See, (“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.”); -49 (Minn. App. 1999) (determining beer bottle thrown with enough force to break on the victim’s head was a dangerous weapon to sustain second-degree a