Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fagerstrom, 176 N.W.2d 261.

90 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Although “[t]he court is obligated to furnish an indigent [defendant] with a capable attorney,” the defendant generally “must accept the court’s appointee.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
However, a defendant does not have an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This right, however, is not an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of [the defendant’s] choosing.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This right, however, is not an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of [the defendant’s] choosing.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But the right of an indigent defendant to court -appointed defense counsel is not an “unbridled right to be represented by coun sel of [the defendant ’s] choosing.” State v. Fagerstrom
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
at 586 (alterations in original) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But the right of an indigent defendant to court -appointed counsel is not an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of [the defendant ’s] choosing.” State v. Fagerstrom
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
E.g., Munt, d at 586; State v. Fagerstrom
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
However, an indigent defendant does not have an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
on their staff.” An indigent defendant does not have the statutory or constitutional right to counsel of his choosing and “must accept the court’s appointee.” 6
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But while defendants have this right to counsel, an indigent defendant does not have an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
But a defendant does not have “the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 290
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Exom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
An indigent defendant’s right to appointed counsel “is not an ‘unbridled right to be represented by counsel of [the defendant’s] choosing.’” Munt, d at 586 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299, ).
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A criminal defendant has the right to have the assistance of counsel, which includes “a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Gillam, d at 449-50; State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299-300
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In determining whether the district court properly exercised its discretion by denying a motion for a continuance, appellate courts consider “whether the defendant was prejudiced in preparing and presenting his defense.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299, -65 (1970).
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298, U.S. Const. Amend.
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
But the right of an indigent defendant to court-appointed defense counsel is not an “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of [the defendant’s] choosing.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Paige 765 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Paige 765 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
158 (1932); State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
State v. Reed 737 N.W.2d 572 Minn. 2007
* * * Although he may ask for a substitution, his request will be granted only if exceptional circumstances exist and the demand seems reasonable.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Courtney 696 N.W.2d 73 Minn. 2005
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298
State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Benniefield 668 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
A district court should only appoint substitute counsel in the face of exceptional circumstances, because the right to counsel does not guarantee an indigent defendant the “unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.” State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
158 (1932); State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 298
State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
State v. Gillam 629 N.W.2d 440 Minn. 2001
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Olson 609 N.W.2d 293 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299