Cited by

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

“Whether a waiver of a constitutional right was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary depends on the facts and circums tances of the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”

Factual findings are clearly erroneous when “there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

(stating that a factual finding “is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred”).

In determining whether a defendant’s waiver is constitutionally valid, the district court should 8 examine “the facts and circumstances of the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” –86 (Minn. 2012).

A district court’s finding is clearly erroneous “when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).

(stating that a factual finding “is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred”).

When the facts are not disputed, “the question of whether a waiver -of-counsel was knowing and intelligent is a constitutional one that is reviewed de novo.” d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).

When the facts are not disputed, as is the case here, the question of whether a waiver-of-counsel was valid “is a constitutional one that is reviewed de novo.” 5 (Minn. 2012).

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

When the facts are not disputed, “the question of whether a waiver-of -counsel was knowing and intelligent is a constitutional one that is reviewed de novo.”

“Whether a waiver of a constitutional right was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”

“A district court’s failure to conduct an on- the-record inquiry regarding waiver, however, does not require reversal when the particular facts and circumstances of the case demonstrate a valid waiver.”

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

A finding is clearly erroneous only if “there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

(stating if there had been no finding as to waiver, and the facts are undisputed, this court reviews de novo whether there was a valid waiver of the right to counsel).

“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835; - 85 (Minn. 2012); Worthy, d at 275.

To comport with constitutional requirements, a criminal defendant’s waiver-of-counsel must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, -85 (Minn. 1 Although Lopez challenges the constitutionality of her waiver of counsel as to both the second-degree drug possession and the possession-of-drug-paraphernalia offenses, we note that a defendant does not have a right to counsel when charged with a petty misdemeanor.

A finding is clearly erroneous only if “there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

The validity of a waiver “depends upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding [the] case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” (quotations omitted).

5 “when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

2 The validity of a waiver “depends upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding [ the] case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” State v. Rhoads , ( -76 (Minn. 1998)) (other quotation omitted) .

To ensure a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of counsel, the district court “should comprehensively examine the defendant.” (quoting State v. Worthy , ).

1(4); see also State v. Rhoads , -86 (Minn. 2012).

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975)