Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rhoads, 813 N.W.2d 880.
- State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Brian Robert Winsor
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
sure a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver-of-counsel, district courts should 3 comprehensively examine the defendant regarding the defendant's comprehension of the charges, the possible punishments, mitigating circumstances, and any other facts relevant to the defendant's understanding of the consequences of the waiver.” –86 (Minn. 2012) (quotations omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones
Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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.” d 880, 885 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted).
- State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Wallace Owens
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Keith Terrell Bland Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Keith Terrell Bland
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Although the 140-day delay in this case creates a presumption that Bland’s speedy-trial right was violated and triggers further inquiry into the remaining Barker factors, “the length of time does not, as an independent factor, provide strong support for finding a violation.” –07 (Minn. App. 2011), rev’d on other grounds
- State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Fabian Charles Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Fabian Charles Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Ron Wesley Epps
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
not enough to demonstrate prejudice”), rev’d on other grounds
- Nicolas Wilcox Hult v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
Nicolas Wilcox Hult v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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.”
- In re the Welfare of J.H. 844 N.W.2d 28 Minn. 2014
-
In re the Welfare of J.H.
844 N.W.2d 28
Minn. 2014
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.”
- Dereje v. State 837 N.W.2d 714 Minn. 2013
- State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-
State v. Maddox
825 N.W.2d 140
Minn. Ct. App. 2013
And a district court, “to ensure a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver-of-counsel, should comprehensively examine the defendant regarding the defendant’s comprehension of the charges, the possible punishments, mitigating circumstances, and any other facts relevant to the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of the waiver.” -86 (Minn.2012) (quotations omitted).