State v. Reinke
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1974, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- State v. Propotnik (Minn. 1974)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a conviction for aggravated forgery in violation of Minn. St. 609.625, subds. 1(1) and 3. He seeks to withdraw his guilty plea because there is no affirmative showing in the record that he understood the meaning of § 609.05, which deals with the criminal *502 liability of one who intentionally aids another in the commission of a crime. This contention is without merit. It is presumed that counsel adequately informed his client of the nature and elements of the offense, including the meaning of Minn. St. 609.05. State v. Dickson, 294 Minn. 459, 199 N. W. 2d 423 (1972); State v. Hopkins, 293 Minn. 522, 198 N. W. 2d 542 (1972); State v. Feather, 288 Minn. 556, 181 N. W. 2d 478 (1970). In any case, we are not persuaded that a failure to spell out the effect of the statute was a factor in defendant’s decision to plead guilty.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.