6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Edwin Edwards Stephen Edwards Cecil Brown Andrew Martin Bobby Johnsongreen2 sentences2010In United States v. Edwards, again a multi-defendant trial, defendant Johnson postponed bypass surgery, believing it was in his strategic interest “to go to verdict” with the other defendants. 303 F.3d 606, 625, 629 (5th Cir.2002). 2010In United States v. Edwards , again a multi-defendant trial, defendant Johnson postponed bypass surgery, believing it was in his strategic interest "to go to verdict" with the other defendants. 303 F.3d 606, 625, 629 (5th Cir.2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goulettegreen1 sentence2007The Supreme Court recognized that convictions based on guilty pleas are generally “justified by the defendant’s admission of guilt and by the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of a trial.” State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn.1977) (citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 ). | 1 | 1 |
Cubbage v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Jurisdictions allowing a defendant to waive his or her right to appeal a conviction require that the waiver be made “intelligently, voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences.” Perkins, 737 P.2d at 251 ; see also Cubbage v. State, 304 Md. 237 , 498 A.2d 632, 633 (1985) (upholding a knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal made by the defendant after conviction but before sentencing). 2005Jurisdictions allowing a defendant to waive his or her right to appeal a conviction require that the waiver be made “intelligently, voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences.” Perkins, 737 P.2d at 251 ; see also Cubbage v. State, 304 Md. 237 , 498 A.2d 632, 633 (1985) (upholding a knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal made by the defendant after conviction but before sentencing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kulsethgreen1 sentence1988State v. Linder, 268 N.W.2d 734, 735 (Minn.1978); State v. Kulseth, 333 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Minn.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindergreen1 sentence1988State v. Linder, 268 N.W.2d 734, 735 (Minn.1978); State v. Kulseth, 333 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Minn.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little
green
1 sentence2015Id. 1 Because I conclude that the record does not show a knowing and voluntary waiver of Beaulieu’s Morrissey rights, I need not address the two issues the majority does reach: whether Beaulieu had a separate constitutional right “to be advised” by the district court of his right to a revocation hearing (Part I of the majority’s opinion) or whether his probation revocation must be reversed solely because of the district court’s plain error in failing to deliver the rights advisory required by Minn. R. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Davis
green
2 sentences2010In affirming, the Fifth Circuit concluded that “McBride’s failure to appear after the court delayed the trial a day and a half was a knowing and voluntary waiver of her right to be present.” Id. at 303 . 2010In affirming, the Fifth Circuit concluded that "McBride's failure to appear after the court delayed the trial a day and a half was a knowing and voluntary waiver of her right to be present." Id. at 303 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2007The Supreme Court recognized that convictions based on guilty pleas are generally “justified by the defendant’s admission of guilt and by the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of a trial.” State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn.1977) (citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 ). 2007The Supreme Court recognized that convictions based on guilty pleas are generally “justified by the defendant’s admission of guilt and by the defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of a trial.” State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn.1977) (citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2005Jurisdictions allowing a defendant to waive his or her right to appeal a conviction require that the waiver be made “intelligently, voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences.” Perkins, 737 P.2d at 251 ; see also Cubbage v. State, 304 Md. 237 , 498 A.2d 632, 633 (1985) (upholding a knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal made by the defendant after conviction but before sentencing). 2005Jurisdictions allowing a defendant to waive his or her right to appeal a conviction require that the waiver be made "intelligently, voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences." Perkins, 737 P.2d at 251 ; see also Cubbage v. State, 304 Md. 237 , 498 A.2d 632, 633 (1985) (upholding a knowing and voluntary waiver of appeal made by the defendant after conviction but before *492 sentencing). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Marriage of Yeager v. Yeager
green
2 sentences1989Yeager v. Yeager, 405 N.W.2d 519 (Minn. Ct.App.1987) supports the conclusion of the trial court that "[appellant] has not alleged a basis for the reopening of the judgment and decree." In Yeager , appellant had not objected to the stipulation, had waived the right to counsel, and had approved a default hearing. 1989Yeager v. Yeager, 405 N.W.2d 519 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) supports the conclusion of the trial court that “[appellant] has not alleged a basis for the reopening of the judgment and decree.” In Yeager , appellant had not objected to the stipulation, had waived the right to counsel, and had approved a default hearing. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.