Cited by

(citing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2541 (1975)).

“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 evid ence to support the finding or when an appellate court is left with the definite and firm c onviction that a mistake occurred.”

(“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

“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).

“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.”

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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 circumstances of the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” State v. Rhoads

“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.”

“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).

d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).

(stating that question of whether a waiver-of-counsel is knowing and intelligent “is a constitutional one”).

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975)

Faretta v. United States, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975); State v. Rhoads , .

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 , ).

not enough to demonstrate prejudice.” State v. Rhoads , d 794, 807-08 (Minn. App. 2011) , rev’d on other grounds

d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012).

(providing that if there is “reasonable evidence” to support the district court’s findings, this court will not disturb them).

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.”

“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.”

11 court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.”

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.”

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).

(citing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 (1975)).

“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.”