Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rhoads, 813 N.W.2d 880.

131 citing documents.

David William Reynolds v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
1(4); see also State v. Rhoads , -86 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975)
Markhel D’John Harris-Franklin v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Troy James Bonkowske Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(citing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541 (1975)).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Labs Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Cedric Antonio English Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evid ence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm c onviction that a mistake occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Lee Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(“Existing case law plainly requires a court to obtain a renewed jury -trial waiver when the State amends its complaint to add an additional charge after the defendant has made an initial jury -trial waiver.”); (“When the State files an amended charge that doubles the maximum possible punishment after a hearing at which the defendant waived his right to counsel, a defendant must renew his waiver of his right to counsel in a manner that demonstrates an understanding of the increased maximum possi
Casimir Robert Krithers v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Brian Anthony Varnado Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.” State v. Rhoads , d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Omar Kwabena Walford Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support the finding or when an appellate court is le ft with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. Payam Naderipour Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Lareco Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.” State v. Rhoads
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jon Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Whether a waiver of a constitutional right was knowing, intelligent, and volu ntary depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the background, experience , and conduct of the accused.” State v. Rhoads
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Cole Simmons Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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 cas e demonstrate a valid waiver.” State v. Rhoads
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jon Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” State v. Rhoads
State of Minnesota v. David Devon Bryant Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Laureen Dvorak, et al v. City of Madison Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” State v. Rhoads
State of Minnesota v. Dwight Lee Docken Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When the facts are undisputed, however, the question of whether a waiver -of-counsel was knowing and intelligent is a constitutional one that is reviewed de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Miyo Marchon-Montine Alexander Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ismahan Mohamed Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Chaquetta Alicia Merie Tolbert Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Larry Roy Kiefat, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that question of whether a waiver-of-counsel is knowing and intelligent “is a constitutional one”).
State of Minnesota v. Chris Becerra Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975)
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Wayne Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Faretta v. United States, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975); State v. Rhoads , .
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: S. F. and J. E., Parents Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A finding of fact “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 c onviction that a mistake occurred.” (citing State v. Rhoads , ).
State of Minnesota v. Hisham Ismaeil Rawi Minn. Ct. App. 2018
not enough to demonstrate prejudice.” State v. Rhoads , d 794, 807-08 (Minn. App. 2011) , rev’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Eric Benjamin Colon Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Ryan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Anayyha Nakashia Black Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).
State of Minnesota v. Kendra Joanne Shulman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(providing that if there is “reasonable evidence” to support the district court’s findings, this court will not disturb them).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Justin Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
However, “[w]hen the facts are undisputed,” the question of whether a defendant validly waived his right to counsel “is a constitutional one that is reviewed de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Hiram Abdul Langston Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Abimbola Bakare Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“A finding is clearly erroneous when there is no reasonable evidence to support th e finding or when an appella te court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Andrew Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Gene Southern Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Harold Krueger Minn. Ct. App. 2017
11 court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: J. P. R., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A factual finding is clearly erroneous if there is no reasonable evidence to support it or if the appellate court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”
State of Minnesota v. John Melvin Karnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To ensure that a defendant’s waiver-of-counsel is knowing and intelligent, the district court “should comprehensively examine the defendant regarding the defendant’s comprehension of the charges, the possible punishments, mitigating circumstance s, and any other facts relevant to the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of the 8 waiver.” State v. Rhoads , (quoting Worthy, d at 276).
State of Minnesota v. Desmond Lamart Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Anthony Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Paul Tulenchek-Armstrong v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Paul Tulenchek-Armstrong v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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.”