Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wiley, 420 N.W.2d 234.

19 citing documents.

Yaasiin Aweis Isxaaq v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that the fact that the defendant “had extensive exposure to the criminal justice system” prior to the guilty plea was “a factor which may be considered in determining whether a guilty plea is knowing and intelligent”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Adrian Dominque Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 353 (“[A]ppellant’s criminal history makes it unlikely that he was unaware of the consequences of a guilty plea.”); (“[W]ith five criminal history points, [the defendant] has had extensive exposure to the criminal justice system, a factor which may be considered in determining whether a guilty plea is knowing and intelligent.”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Jesus Daniel Ibarra v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Wiley , ( considering appellant’s plea petition and experience with the criminal justice system when determining whether a plea was intelligent), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
Jamia Lee Griffith v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Wiley , (finding defendant “with five criminal history points, has had extensive exposure to the cri minal justice system, a factor which may be considered in determining whether a guilty plea is knowing and intelligent.”).
State of Minnesota v. Dale Dwayne Greer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Spencer Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Wilson Nduri Tindi v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, vs Floyd Erik Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But “[a] trial court’s failure to follow Rule 15.01 procedures does not invalidate the guilty plea.”
Leanne Starr v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Apr.
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
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lopez 794 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
(upholding validity of plea when court did not ask all rule 15.01 questions after determining defendant was aware of constitutional rights because he testified that he went through rule 15 petition with counsel), review denied (Minn. Apr.
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
review denied (Minn. Apr.
Johnson v. State 486 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. State 486 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(stating in dicta that “[a]rguably, the postcon-viction proceeding can be considered a separate action, in which a defendant has a renewed right to one automatic removal of a judge”), pet.
State v. DeZeler 422 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. DeZeler 422 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1988