Legal Opinion

State v. Danh

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 20, 1994No. C1-93-86PublishedCited by 27 opinions

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

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. In Re IbarraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer PressSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  2. State v. RaleighSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
  3. Butala v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. State v. BeySupreme Court of Kansas · 2001
  5. State v. FinneganSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API