State v. Crump
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HOOTEN, Judge.
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that the plea was unintelligent and therefore invalid. Appellant claims, at the time of his plea, he did not know that he would subsequently be charged with another crime resulting from a separate prior incident and that the conviction associated with his plea could adversely affect any conviction and sentence for the new charge. Because the effect of a guilty plea on a future charge arising out of a separate incident is a collateral consequence, we affirm.
F…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- State v. RaleighSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2010
- State v. TheisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- Alanis v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- State v. WukawitzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Mohammed Mohammed AliCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014