State of Minnesota v. Tieshawn Stevie Fields
Case Details
- Status
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture
- appeal of district court denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Fields's motion to withdraw his guilty plea for felony domestic assault, finding he failed to establish valid reasons under the fair-and-just standard and rejecting his manifest-injustice claim.
Excerpt
Appellant Tieshawn Stevie Fields pleaded guilty to felony domestic assault after assaulting his romantic partner at her workplace. Before sentencing, Fields moved to withdraw his plea because he was no longer interested in the terms offered by respondent State of Minnesota. The district court denied the request, reasoning that "changing [one's] mind" is not a valid basis to withdraw a plea under the fair-and-just standard. Fields appeals. Because Fields failed to establish reasons to justify withdrawal of his plea under the fair-and-just standard, and because he is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea under the manifest-injustice standard, we affirm. In so doing, we also reject Fields's claim that the district court judge committed a structural error by conducting an independent investigation, as the record conclusively shows that the judge merely reviewed the record in Fields's current case.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that his conduct was not objectively unreasonable and did not have a substantial adverse effect on respondent that was objectively reasonable. We affirm.
In this dispute related to a harassment restraining order (HRO), pro se appellant argues that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. Because the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over appellant, we affirm.
In this appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen a harassment-restraining-order (HRO) proceeding pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion. Because the district court acted within its discretion by denying his motion to reopen, we affirm.
Appellant challenges the district court's grant of a former romantic partner's petition for a harassment restraining order (HRO) against him. Because the district court did not clearly err in its findings and did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were reasonable grounds to believe that appellant's behavior constituted harassment, we affirm.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.