Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854.

348 citing documents.

State v. Burdick 795 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The Minnesota Supreme Court recognized a
State v. Doebel 790 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Doebel 790 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-58 (Minn.1980); Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Sterling 782 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sterling 782 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
4, procedure (-58 (Minn.1980)), this court’s review is limited to the pretrial order that denied the motion to suppress.
State v. Wertheimer 781 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2010
State v. Wertheimer 781 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 2010
4, and convicted Wertheimer of first-degree DWI (test refusal).
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
1 Ortega stipulated to the evidence against him.
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Carey v. State 765 N.W.2d 396 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
(stating that guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects arising before entry of plea); (same).
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Antrim 764 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
4, effective April 1, 2007
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Appellant Kevin Dwaine Ehmke, formerly known as Kevin Dwaine Sandahl, 1 challenges his conviction of failure to register as a predatory offender on the grounds that (1) the matter was improperly venued in Otter Tail County; (2) his conviction violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy; and (3) without a valid waiver.
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Poetschke 750 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Appellant waived her right to a
State v. Ortega 749 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ortega 749 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Ortega waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to certain facts for a
State v. Rasmussen 749 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Rasmussen 749 N.W.2d 423 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
and the district court found Rasmussen guilty.
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Appellant entered a stipulating to the facts to preserve the right to appeal the charge enhancement issue.
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
After the district court denied Allinder’s motion to suppress, Allinder waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a
State v. Mohs 743 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 2008
State v. Mohs 743 N.W.2d 607 Minn. 2008
State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
State v. Knoll 739 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Knoll 739 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In this appeal from conviction of motor-vehicle theft and fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, Michael Knoll argues that the Clay County District Court improperly denied his evidence-suppression motion and failed to obtain a
State v. Losh 739 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Losh 739 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
3, which permits an appellant to "raise issues on appeal the same as from any trial,” including pretrial issues, which preserves only pretrial issues for appeal.
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
State v. Farnsworth 738 N.W.2d 364 Minn. 2007
(“ ‘When a criminal defendant had solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.’ ” (quoting Toll
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Munger v. State 737 N.W.2d 604 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
As a preliminary matter, the state argues that "by entering a plea of guilty, rather than proceeding to either a [appellant] waived any and all nonjurisdictional defects including challenging either the district court’s ruling regarding probable cause or the sufficiency of the evidence."
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
The motion was denied, -58 (Minn.1980), thereby reserving J.W.L.’s right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress the photographs.
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
To expedite his appeal, Mohs waived his right to a -58 (Minn.1980).
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
Verschelde, d at 194-95 () (internal citations omitted).
State v. Polsfuss 720 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Polsfuss 720 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
The district court denied appellant’s motion and the parties agreed to proceed with a
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006