State v. Lorentz
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Per curiam
These combined appeals are from separate orders of the district court denying separate motions of defendants (who are siblings) to withdraw their guilty pleas.1 *38The issue in each appeal relates to whether the defendant’s plea was intelligently — that is, knowingly and understandingly — entered. We affirm.
Defendants contend basically that their respective defense counsel failed to adequately inform them that if their cases went to trial the state would have to prove that the substance that they were charged with possessing was in fact marijuana and that they had a right to call their own…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Henderson v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- State v. PropotnikSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
- State v. NaceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
3Cited by6 opinions
- State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce BeaulieuSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
- State v. DoughmanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
- State of Minnesota v. Sylvester JonesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2024
- Cedric Lamont Berry v. State of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2026
- State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce BeaulieuSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.