Cited by

(stating that we review unobjected-to error under the “plain error test”).

State v. Myhre , see also Minn. R. Crim.

A party may forfeit an argument by failing to raise it before the court of appeals, or by failing to include it in the petition for review to the supreme court, Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe

(noting that plain-error analysis is appropriate when a defendant fails to raise an objection to an alleged trial error before the district court).

This court will review an unobjected-to error under the “plain error test.”

“In order to meet the plain error standard, a criminal defendant must sho w that (1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” ().

The rule “allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waiv e all trial-related rights, including his or her right to a jury trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive, pretrial ruling.”

State v. Myhre , -04 (Minn. 2016).

4; see also State v. Myhre , (“[Rule 26.01, subdivision 4] allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waive all trial-related rights, including his or her right to a jury trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive, pretrial ruling.”).

“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (citations omitted); see also State v. Myhre , (stating that an issue is forfeited when it is not adequately argued or explained); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief .

On plain-e rror review, appellants bear the burden of showing that “(1) there was an erro r, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

We do not consider arguments that lack full development in the briefs and that, for lack of thorough argument, “may have inhibited the respondent’s ability to argue the issue to our court.” ().

Under this 8 standard, an appellant must show that “(1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”

d 799, 804 (Minn. 2016) (reviewing error in a “trial to the court” under rule 26.01, subdivision 4).

4; (stating that Rule 26.01 “allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waive all trial -related rights, including his or her right to a jur y trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive, pretrial ruling”).

4, which “replaced Lothenbach as the method for preserving a dispositive pretrial issue for appell ate review in a criminal case.”

4, “allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waive all trial-related rights, including his or her right to a jury trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive, pretrial ruling .”

(“In order to meet the plain error standard, a criminal defendant must show that (1) there was a n error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights.”).

To satisfy the plain-error standard, an appel lant must demonstrate that “(1) there was an error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the e rror affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” State v. Myhre

(stating that assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by argument or authority is “waived unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”), aff’d, (declining to address issues raised in a brief but not adequately argued or explained).

State v. Myhre , , 806 (Minn. 2016) (explaining that issues not raised in the court of appeals are usually *640 forfeited here).

Under the invited-error doctrine, appellate courts “do not typically review errors that were invited by the defendant or that the defendant could have prevented in the district court.”

(stating that an appellate court may deem issues raised in a brief, but not adequately argued or explained, forfeited on appeal); State v. Krosch , (stating that allegations set out in a pro se supplemental brief are considered waived when “[t]he brief contains no

See State v. Myhre , , 806 (Minn. 2016) (stating that "we have declined to consider issues that were not raised in the petition for review and not fully developed in the appellant's brief").

See State v. Myhre , (noting that Minn. R. Crim.

State v. Myhre , , 804 (Minn. 2016) (citing State v. Griller , , 740 (Minn. 1998) ).

See State v. Myhre , , 806 (Minn. 2016) (stating that "we have declined to consider issues that were not raised in the petition for review and not fully developed in the appellant's brief").

4 , “allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waive all trial-related rights, including his or her right to a jury trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive, pretrial ruling .”

“This rule allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waive all trial-related rights, including his or her right to a jury trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive, pretrial ruling.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

d 799, 802 (Minn. 2016).

4, has “replaced Lothenbach as the method for preserving a dispositive pretrial issue for appellate review in a criminal case.” State v. Myhre

-91 (Minn. App. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, (holding that plain-error analysis applies to unobjected-to errors committed under rule 26.01, subdivision 4).

4, has “replaced Lothenbach as the method for preserving a dispositive pretrial issue for appellate review in a criminal case.” d 799, 802 (Minn. 2016).