Legal Opinion

Kaiser v. State

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 2, 2001No. C5-00-807PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

Douglas Kaiser appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Kaiser argues that because the district court failed to inform him of the ten-year sex-offender registration requirement before he entered his guilty plea, the plea was not intelligently entered. The registration requirement is a civil-regulatory consequence that is collateral to the entry of the guilty plea; thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kaiser’s application to withdraw his plea. We affirm.

FACTS

In a four-count complaint, the Dakota County…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. State v. WardWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  5. State v. BolligWisconsin Supreme Court · 2000

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kaiser v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  2. Kaiser v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
  3. Morris v. State 01-277 (2002)Superior Court of Rhode Island · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API