Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

638 N.W.2d 480

State v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided January 31, 2002

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota · decided 2002-01-31

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2016

6 state decisions

Relies on Alanis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-01-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CRIPPEN, Judge

¶1(dissenting).

¶2Action on a guilty plea may be just even though it is proven that the defendant was not informed about collateral consequences of a conviction. Alanis v. State, 583 N.W.2d 573, 578-79 (Minn.1998). But it is quite another thing to suggest that collateral consequences of conviction must be ignored by counsel, the parties, or the court-or more specifically, that the trial court may not consider collateral consequences of a conviction in determining whether to make a downward dispositional departure. If there were authority for the latter conclusion, I would agree with the rationale carefully enunciated by the majority. There being no such authority, I respectfully dissent from the decision to reverse.

/638/nw2d/480 · .json · Public domain