Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ford, 397 N.W.2d 875.

99 citing documents.

Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jermaine Kershawn Perry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The first three arguments fail because a counseled guilty plea “has traditionally operated, in Minnesota and in other jurisdictions, as a waiver of all non- jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
we addressed the merits of the appeal even though the defendant had pleaded guilty, rather' than not guilty, while attempting to comply with the Lothenbach procedure.
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mackenzie Leigh Meier v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.”
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Megan Marie Kochendorfer v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The first three arguments fail because a counseled guilty plea “has traditionally operated, in Minnesota and in other jurisdictions, as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that a counseled guilty plea extinguishes all pre-plea non- jurisdictional defects).
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Harry Maddox, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Lothenbach, d at 857 (noting that defendant’s attorney stated that the record should reflect that the reason for plea was to conclude the case at the district court level and appeal denial of motion to suppress); (stating that because the circumstances were similar to those in Lothenbach, the court would treat the case as it did in Lothenbach as an appeal from a finding of guilty based on stipulated facts).
State v. Miller 849 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Miller 849 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Jeffries 806 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 2011
State v. Jeffries 806 N.W.2d 56 Minn. 2011
“A guilty plea by a counseled defendant has traditionally operated, in Minnesota and in other jurisdictions, as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea.” ().
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
State v. Wukawitz 662 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2003
d at 687-88 ; -83 (Minn.1986); Schwerm v. State, 288 Minn. 488, 491
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
State v. Jumping Eagle 620 N.W.2d 42 Minn. 2000
Moreover, to ensure that the defendant understood the trial court was free to depart from the recommended sentence, and that any departure would not allow the defendant to withdraw the plea, were not used here.
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
Perkins v. State 559 N.W.2d 678 Minn. 1997
(“An unac-hieved, unwarranted hope is not the manifest injustice which mandates plea withdrawal here under rule 15.05 * * *.”).
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
State v. Murphy 545 N.W.2d 909 Minn. 1996
(guilty plea operates as waiver of all nonjurisdietional defects arising prior to the entry of the plea).
Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270 533 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Criticized Elstrom v. Independent School District No. 270 533 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The supreme court has stated that “our society gives teachers great authority and holds them in a position of special trust.”
State v. Hanson 514 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Hanson 514 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See State v. Hall (causing a complainant to submit by warning her to be quiet or she would be killed); , 877 n. 1 (Minn.1986) (suggesting, prior to statute’s effective date, that a teacher granting special privileges could “cause the complainant to submit”); (upholding conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree' for contact that did not involve coer
State v. Zacher 504 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1993
State v. Zacher 504 N.W.2d 468 Minn. 1993
State v. Zacher 490 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French 460 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1990
State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French 460 N.W.2d 2 Minn. 1990
Ballweber v. State 457 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Ballweber v. State 457 N.W.2d 215 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Bonynge 450 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Bonynge 450 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
d ,62, 66 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), rev’d on other grounds
State v. Montpetit 445 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Montpetit 445 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. DeZeler 427 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1988
State v. DeZeler 427 N.W.2d 231 Minn. 1988
Relevant decisions on this aspect of the case include: State v. Loyd, 291 Minn. 528
State v. Johnson 422 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Johnson 422 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Serstock 402 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1987
State v. Serstock 402 N.W.2d 514 Minn. 1987
The requirement that “lawful authority” in which we held that the defendant schoolteacher violated the official misconduct statute.