Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8.

255 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Wayne William Leistico Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 8, 22 (Minn. App. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We need “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gassoway Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Christopher Winford Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Michael Krall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A defendant appealing the admission of evidence has the burden to show it was erroneous and prejudicial.”
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mang Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Jonathan Conneely v. Hannah Stancek, f/k/a Hannah Conneely Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Mang Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Beane 840 N.W.2d 848 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
Torres v. State 837 N.W.2d 487 Minn. 2013
(stating that we “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (declin *493 ing to address issue that was not raised in the postconviction court).
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
State v. Morrow 834 N.W.2d 715 Minn. 2013
(stating that our court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
(declining to consider the defendant’s pro se claim because he did “not cite either the record or legal authority to support [the] claim”); ("We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority-”).
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
(declining to address a pro se claim on the merits where the defendant did not cite either the record or legal authority for support); (noting that “[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
The party challenging a statute must demonstrate that the statute “is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The state’s is likewise unavailing.
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dereje v. State 812 N.W.2d 205 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
We decline to “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”
In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
State v. Johnson 813 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
In re the Welfare of M.L.M. 813 N.W.2d 26 Minn. 2012
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
State v. Palmer 803 N.W.2d 727 Minn. 2011
We do not consider arguments that the defendant has waived in this manner unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
State v. SONTOYA 788 N.W.2d 868 Minn. 2010
5 (“[T]his court does not consider pro se claims on appeal that are not supported by argument or citation to legal authority”); (noting that “ ‘[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities ...
In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But “the general rule of the Warrant Clause is not unyielding.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
State v. Tomassoni 778 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 2010
-23 (Minn.2008) (noting that this court does not consider pro se claims on appeal that are not supported by argument or citation to legal authority).
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
But “the general rule of the Warrant Clause is not unyielding.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Morales 764 N.W.2d 621 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
the supreme court affirmed the admission of Spreigl evidence of a burglary and assault in the home to prove “identity, absence of mistake, and common scheme or plan” in the trial for a rape and murder that occurred 10 months later.
State v. Anderson 763 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2009