Legal Opinion

State v. Nace

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 9, 1976No. 45443PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant contends on this appeal from judgment of conviction of sale of a controlled substance (marijuana) that (1) the record does not contain a sufficient basis for concluding (a) that the plea was knowingly and intelligently entered, or (b) that there was a factual basis for it; and (2) the record compels the conclusion that his counsel did not provide adequate representation. We affirm.

Defendant’s contention that the record does not contain a sufficient basis for concluding that the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered is based on the fact that at the time he entered the plea,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. HoaglundSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  2. State v. PropotnikSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  3. State v. FriesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kochevar v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Perkins v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  3. State v. LorentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  4. State v. MiltonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. State v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976

2 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