Cited by

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

397 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Aleshia Lynn Becklund Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Raleigh, d at 96 (citing State v. Trott , ).
State of Minnesota v. Sovajie Marion Julian Temple Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Christopher Braun Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allen Lacek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. David Darnell Jones, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. John Ishmael Bradley, III Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.” (), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
Michael Dale Miller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.” ().
Jason Elliot Peterson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Douglas Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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. Gail Lynn Schauer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. Trott , d 248, 251 (Minn. 1983); see Williams v. State , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Christian Bolton-Hernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Keith Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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 ().
Dinesh Mongar v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
Lussier v. State , State v. Trott , –52 (Minn. 1983).
State of Minnesota v. Juan Bustamante Minn. Ct. App. 2022
8 testimony of witnesses and statements summarizing the evidence.” State v. Trott
Nicholas Patrick Pankuch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Majed Issac Ijong v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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
State of Minnesota v. James Earl Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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 ().
Todd Deon Rolack, petitioner, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
d 678, 690 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Brice Killian Foster Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Dequarn Markeyth Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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.” ).
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Leonida Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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
Jesus Daniel Ibarra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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. Michael John Bacon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Stanley Paul Wenell-Jack Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Wade Allen Sorensen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.
Tony Ray Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Dale Klitzke Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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 ().
Christopher Paul Mattson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Randy Joel Bade Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Samuel Morton Post, III v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Ambrose Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Matt Monoleetio Vogel Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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 ().
State of Minnesota v. Alipio Santiago Veitia Minn. Ct. App. 2021
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
Markhel D’John Harris-Franklin v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Labs Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Mitch Nickaboine Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ishmel Barry McReynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-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.
Justin Marcus Rosendahl v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Lee Wachter Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An intelligent guilty plea is a plea that is “knowingly and understandingly made.”
Elfonzo Dyrell Shelby v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The purpose of requiring guilty pleas to be voluntary is to ensure that the defendant “is not pleading guilty because of improper pressures.”
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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
State of Minnesota v. Steven Francis Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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
Mitchell Le Dac Ho v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Richmel Van Richards Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Some things that are not ordinarily thought of as dangerous weapons become dangerous weapons if so used.”
State of Minnesota v. Meade Terrell Stademeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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
State of Minnesota v. Quintin Isaiah Bianco Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.”
Douglas Edwin Minor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Abram Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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.
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Rafie Mullins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Trott , see also Sanchez v. State , aff’d on other grounds , ).