State v. Lothenbach

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that defendant’s attorney stated that the record should reflect that the reason for plea was to conclude the case at the district court level and appeal denial of motion to suppress
• noting that a defendant generally waives nonjurisdictional defects by entering a guilty plea, including the right to “raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” (quotation omitted)
• noting that Minnesota does not recognize conditional guilty pleas
• reviewing a defendant’s Fourth Amendment issue although he failed to follow the preferred approach of submitting the case to the district court on stipulated facts to preserve a pretrial claim for appellate review
• describing a procedure by which a criminal defendant enters a not-guilty plea, waives his right to a jury trial, and stipulates to the state’s evidence to obtain appellate review of pretrial issues
• “The traditional viewpoint in Minnesota, as well as elsewhere, has been that a guilty plea by a counseled defendant operates as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects, including Fourth Amendment claims.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).