Cited by

Court-appointed counsel is limited to defendants financially unable to find representation, meaning that he receives means-tested government benefits or that any combination of liquid assets and income would be insufficient for retaining private counsel, Minn. R. Crim.

But Moore’s conduct fits well within the supreme court’s definition of “waiver by conduct,” which has been applied in a different context to criminal defendants who seek to frustrate or delay court proceedings by “voluntarily engag[ing] in misconduct knowing what they stand to lose.” (quotation omitted) 10 (alteration added); see also State v. Worthy , -77 (Minn. 1998) (concluding that defendants waived right to counsel by firing attorney).

d 496, 504 (Minn. 2009).

“Though the right to counsel is a constitutional requirement, it may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”

d 496, 504 (Minn. 2009).

Appellate courts review “unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct under a modified plain-error standard of review.”

(descr ibing waiver by conduct as applying to those defendants who voluntarily engage in misconduct knowing what they stand to lose by voluntarily engaging in misconduct after having been warned that they will lose counsel, even if they profess that they do not want to proceed pro se).

Appellate courts review “unobjected-to prosecutorial misconduct under a modified plain-error standard of review.”

–49 (Minn. App. 2008) (recognizing that “the di strict court made an implicit credibility finding”), aff’d

“A defendant may waive his right to counsel.”

“Though the right to counsel is a constitutional requirement, it may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.” d 496, 504 (Minn. 2009).

(stating “[w]aiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right”); n.7 (Minn. 2023) (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture).

–49 (Minn. App. 2008) (recognizing that “the district court made an implicit credibility finding”), aff’d

d 496, 504 (Minn. 2009).

This court “will only overturn a finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.” (quotation omitted).

(“Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right.”).

While he identifies no authority expressly holding that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a probation-revocation hearing, we agree that waiver is “the voluntary relinquishment of a known right.”

(explaining forfeitur e-of-counsel rules and holding that a defendant “forfeited his right to counsel” based on conduct that was “extremely dilatory”).

16 “We will only overturn a ‘finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.’” ().

A defendant’s constitutional right to counsel “may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”

by the failure to make timely assertion of the right,” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted), while “[w]aiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right,”

9 “We will only overturn a ‘finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.’” (quoting Worthy, d at 276).

(stating that before accepting a waiver of the right to 7 counsel in a felony case, the district court must “fully advise” the defendant as to “the nature of the charges, the possible punishment, mitigating circumstances, and all facts essential” to understand the consequences of their decision (

On review, an appellate court “will only over turn a ‘finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.’” State v. Jones , (quoting Worthy, d at 276).

A waiver of counsel must be made knowingly, intelligently, and 15 voluntarily.6 State v. Jones

A defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel must be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”

State v. Clark , see also State v. Jones , (explainin g the role of advisory counsel).

1(4); see also State v. Jones , (stating that appointment of standby counsel is discretionary); State v. Garibaldi , (suggesting that the consequences of a district court’s failure to adhere to waiver of counsel rules may be mitigated by the appointment of an advisory counsel).

“Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right.”

This court “will only overturn a ‘finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.’” (quoting State v. Worthy , ).

A defendant can relinquish his right to an attorney in three ways: “(1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”

The Minn esota Supreme Court has held th at the right to an attorney “may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”

(holding that a criminal defe ndant may be found to have wa ived or forfeited the right to counsel by dilatory conduct).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held t hat the right to an attorney “may be relinquished in three ways: (1) waiver, (2) waiver by conduct, and (3) forfeiture.”