Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Krause, 817 N.W.2d 136.

40 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Buay David Duol Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“But we review de novo whether a defendant has been denied due process of law.”
Joel Armen Underwood, III. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Joel Armen Underwood, III. v. State of Minnesota 8 N.W.3d 655 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Delilah Golden Metoxen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Curt Matthew Craven Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Curt Matthew Craven Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In other words, “[o]nce a defendant has been warned that he will lose his attorney if he engages in dilatory tactics, any misconduct thereafter may be treated as an implied request to proceed pro se and, thus, as a waiver of the right to counsel.” n.10 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Delilah Golden Metoxen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
n.10 (Minn. 2012) (“A waiver is an intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right.” (quotation omitted)).
In re the Matter of: Victoria Carlson and Stephen Carlson, Appellants, vs. Pam Wheelock, in her official capacity … Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Anderson 931 N.W.2d 640 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Krause , , 145 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319 , 333, 96 S. Ct. 893 , 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) ) (other quotation omitted).
Thomas Gerald Rothmeier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Krause , n.6 (Minn. 2012) (citing United States v. Wade , 388 U.S. 218, 2 24, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 1931 (1967)).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2018
“The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due proces[s] guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.” (alteration in the original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hazley 901 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hazley 901 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Wieseler, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; (noting that the due-process protections under the Minnesota Constitution are identical to the protections under the United States Constitution).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
XIV, § 1; (“The due process protection provi ded under the Minnesota Constitu tion is identical to the due 3 Beaulieu does not challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea was allegedly coerced.
Brent Lanier Lynch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Lynch’s appellate counsel stated her opinion that, contrary to Lynch’s suggestion, did not 4 apply to his case.
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(d 136, 144 n.6 (Minn. 2012)); Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1205 (1977).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Ellis Hill 871 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 2015
XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; (noting that the protections of due process provided under the Minnesota Constitution are “identical” to those guaranteed under the United States Constitution ()).
In re: the Petition of K. P. W. and J. L. H. to Adopt S. Q.-B. W., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In re: the Petition of K. P. W. and J. L. H. to Adopt S. Q.-B. W., a … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
Otha Eric Townsend v. State of Minnesota 867 N.W.2d 497 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
“The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Trong Hoang Nguyen Le Minn. Ct. App. 2014
[3]; d 136, 146 n.7 (Minn. 2012) (discussing proper method of attorney withdrawal).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
State v. Pass 832 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2013
"The due process protection provided under the Minnesota Constitution is identical to the due proces[s] guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States.” State v. Krause, *842 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
A criminal defendant’s right to counsel applies to “ ‘critical stages of the proceedings.’ ” , 144 n. 6 (Minn.2012) (quoting United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224 , 87 S.Ct.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by