Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite A.C. Ford v. State, 690 N.W.2d 706.

96 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Andrew Gerald Bloom Minn. Ct. App. 2026
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
279 (Minn. 1998); (discussing defendant’s constitutional right to be present at trial).
State of Minnesota v. Mervel George Jones, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Mervel George Jones, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
VI, XIV; d 706, 712 (Minn. 2005) (“A defendant’s constitutional right to be present [at trial] is grounded in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Morris Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A defendant’s constitutional right to be present [at trial] is grounded in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Lashazo Reese, Jr., Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. James Darnell Posey Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 440, 450 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Lee Tonnessen Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Igor Pavlovich Albantov v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Courtney Victor Prude Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A defendant’s constitutional right to be present is grounded in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (citing United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S. Ct. 1482, 1484 (1985)).
State of Minnesota v. Chad William Kasal Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A defendant’s constitutional right to be present is grounded in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 5 Amendment.” Ford v. S tate, .
State of Minnesota v. Vondale Lamar Kincaide Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Lee Collins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Followed State v. Petersen 910 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2018
Ford v. State , , 712 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Roberta Duval Parnell Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see also State v. Parker, 278 Minn. 53, 55, (stating that “[i]t is fundamental that the right of appeal is purely statutory and that the statutory requirements of filing and service are jurisdiction al” and that “[t]his court has no power to extend the statutory time fo
State of Minnesota v. Damon Michael DiMartino Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Cole Earl Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.” (holding same).
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Jacka Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota 888 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2016
The State asks us to decide the proper standard of review when examining a district court’s decision to treat a motion under Rule 27.03, subdivision 9, as a petition for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. 4
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ronald Aaron McCord v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 706, 712 (Minn. 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Byron Lester Goldtooth Minn. Ct. App. 2016
e reference to March 6, 2014, was a clerical error and that the discovery motion was argued in open court on March 10, 2014, in Goldtooth’s presence.1 A defendant in a criminal proceeding has a constitutional right under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be present “at all critical stages of trial.” see also United v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S. Ct. 1482, 1484 (1985).
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Armando DeLaCruz, Jr. 884 N.W.2d 878 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Craig Matthew Hohenwald v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2016
Craig Matthew Hohenwald v. State of Minnesota 875 N.W.2d 843 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Patrick Morin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Patrick Morin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
The interpretation of those rules “is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Zacharie Allen Stankey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zacharie Allen Stankey Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Josue Robles Fraga 864 N.W.2d 615 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maker Galuak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Maker Galuak Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION “The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
P. 26.01 “The interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure is a question of law subject to de novo review.”
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Followed Jose Socorro Ortiz v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Ivan Torres-Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Fabian Charles Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014