DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Waldron, 139 N.W.2d 785.

100 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    6 corrected or contradicted during the colloquy); see also, d 785, 794 (Minn. 1966) (affirming denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where the record did not support the defendant’s claim of innocence); d 463, 468-69 (Minn. 1961) (affirming denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea where “[a] careful reading of the entire transcript indicates
  • Nicholas Patrick Pankuch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    For example, a manifest injustice may exist if a district court “lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter” or if a defendant “was not adequately afforded th e advice of competent counsel.” ( ).
  • Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • Sorchaga v. Ride Auto, LLC 893 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    A judgment is void for lack of due process “only where the circumstances surrounding the trial are such as to make it a sham and a pretense rather than a real judicial proceeding.” State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 66-67 , (quotation omitted).
  • Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Bode v. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 594 N.W.2d 257 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2862, at 326-29 (2d ed.1995); see Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction renders judgment void ab initio); Peterson, d at 338 (lack of personal jurisdiction renders judgment void); State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 66-67 , (a judgment is void for want of due process when circumstances of trial render it a sham or pretense); Garber v. Bancamerica-Blair Carp., 205 Mi
  • State v. Vieburg 404 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Vieburg 404 N.W.2d 312 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    1441, 1446 , 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , see State v. Seebold, 280 Minn. 241, 246 , Reiff v. State, 41 Wis.2d 369
  • State v. Olsen 258 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Olsen 258 N.W.2d 898 Minn. 1977
    Accord, State v. Fields, 279 Minn. 374 , State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57
  • In Re Welfare of T. D. F. 258 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1977
  • In Re Welfare of T. D. F. 258 N.W.2d 774 Minn. 1977
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57
  • White v. State 248 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1976
  • White v. State 248 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1976
    See, State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 70 , Adler v. State, 284 Minn. 31, 37
  • State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
  • State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
    State v. Walter, 289 Minn. 309 , State v. Fields, 279 Minn. 374 , State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57
  • State v. Prettyman 198 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1972
  • State v. Prettyman 198 N.W.2d 156 Minn. 1972
    Adler v. State, 284 Minn. 31 , State v. Sutton, 277 Minn. 157 , State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57
  • Brown v. State 193 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 1972
  • Brown v. State 193 N.W.2d 613 Minn. 1972
    Kons v. Tahash, 281 Minn. 467, 474 , State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , and State v. Jacobs, 292 Minn. 41
  • State v. Carlson 192 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Jacobs 192 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Jacobs 192 N.W.2d 816 Minn. 1971
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , State v. Warren, 278 Minn. 119 , State v. Carlson, 292 Minn. 38
  • State v. Carlson 192 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 1971
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 69
  • State v. Palmer 191 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Palmer 191 N.W.2d 188 Minn. 1971
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Walter 184 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Walter 184 N.W.2d 426 Minn. 1971
    State v. Fields, 279 Minn. 374 , 157 N. W. (2d) 61 ; State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • State v. Keenan 184 N.W.2d 410 Minn. 1971
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 ; State v. Lund, 277 Minn. 90 , 151 N. W. (2d) 769 ; Adler v. State, 284 Minn. 31 , 169 N. W. (2d) 233 .
  • State v. Dinneen 184 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Dinneen 184 N.W.2d 16 Minn. 1971
    The general rule with respect to the allegation of incompetence or inadequacy of counsel in this state is that to be sufficient the allegations must disclose a performance by counsel so incompetent as to make the proceedings “a farce or a mockery of justice.” State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 69 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 , *257 794; State v. Lund, supra; State v. Roberts, 279 Minn. 319 , 156 N. W. (2d) 760 .
  • State v. Hanson 182 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1971
  • State v. Hanson 182 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1971
    State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • Coolen v. State 179 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1970
  • Coolen v. State 179 N.W.2d 81 Minn. 1970
    This court has held in a number of recent cases that a district court is authorized to vacate a plea of guilty where the claim was made that (1) defendant was not adequately afforded the advice of competent counsel (State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. [2d] 785); (2) an agreement made by the prosecution to induce *49 the plea was not fulfilled (State v. Wolske, 280 Minn. 465 , 160 N. W. [2d] 146); (3) the defendant did not understand the nature and elements of the offense charged and the c
  • Pratt v. State 175 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1970
  • Pratt v. State 175 N.W.2d 182 Minn. 1970
    Adler v. State, supra; State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • Adler v. State 169 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1969
  • Adler v. State 169 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1969
    The general rule with respect to the allegation of inadequate counsel is that— “* * * allegations of incompetence or inefficiency on the part of counsel will not ordinarily suffice, unless counsel’s purported representation was such that the trial was made a farce and a mockery of justice.” State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 69 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785, 794 .
  • State v. King 167 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1969
  • State v. King 167 N.W.2d 745 Minn. 1969
    Drysdale v. Tahash, 278 Minn. 361 , 154 N. W. (2d) 691 ; State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • Chapman v. State 162 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1968
  • Chapman v. State 162 N.W.2d 698 Minn. 1968
    See, State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • State Ex Rel. Kons v. Tahash 161 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1968
  • State Ex Rel. Kons v. Tahash 161 N.W.2d 826 Minn. 1968
    Dehning v. Rigg, 251 Minn. 120 , 86 N. W. (2d) 723 , rendering the proceedings a sham and pretense, or a farce or mockery of justice as we stated in State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 .
  • STATE EX REL. BEACH v. Tahash 161 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1968
  • STATE EX REL. BEACH v. Tahash 161 N.W.2d 664 Minn. 1968
    You were sentenced last week and you are sentenced this week.” 1 The test of inadequacy of counsel, as a constitutional consideration, is whether the quality of the representation is so palpably incompetent as to make “a farce and a mockery of justice.” See, State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57, 69 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785, 794 ; see, also, State v. Bailey, *322 270 Minn. 64 , 132 N. W. (2d) 720 .
  • State ex rel. Haas v. Tahash 160 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1968
  • State ex rel. Haas v. Tahash 160 N.W.2d 719 Minn. 1968
    The topic is covered exhaustively in State v. Waldron, 273 Minn. 57 , 139 N. W. (2d) 785 , where we said that in order to be sufficient the allegations of incompetence of counsel must disclose a performance so incompetent as to make the trial a farce or a mockery of justice.