State v. Danh
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KEITH, Chief Justice.
This case raises the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow appellant Hoang Muc Danh to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing, where his plea was part of a “package deal” or contingent plea agreement involving more lenient sentences for three co-defendants, including appellant’s younger brother. We hold that, at the time of the guilty plea, the state must reveal to the trial court the contingent nature of “package deal” pleas, so that the trial court can determine if the defendant’s plea is voluntary. We conclude that,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- In Re IbarraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer PressSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
- State v. RaleighSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- Butala v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- State v. BeySupreme Court of Kansas · 2001
- State v. FinneganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.