Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gillam, 629 N.W.2d 440.

65 citing documents.

David Chukuma Jirinzu v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Angelette Marie Crumble Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman Minn. 2026
Exceptional circumstances are “those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Quan Turner Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jeremiah Quan Turner Minn. 2026
A circumstance is exceptional only when it affects counsel’s “ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Quenton Tyrone Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2026
If a court excludes a defendant for disruptive behavior, it need not “continually” invite them back or otherwise seek to determine if they are “ready to behave.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lawrence Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lawrence Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although the supreme court has stated that, in certain circumstances, disagreements over trial strategy could affect an appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent a defendant, -50 (Minn. 2001), Hunt does not argue that counsel’s refusal to file the motions that he requested suggested inability or incompetence on the part of his public defender.
State of Minnesota v. Adrian Dominique Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Exceptional circumstances are those circumstances that impact an “attorney’s ability or competence to represent the [defendant].”
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Lee Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Azzel Mickey Lee Foster Minn. Ct. App. 2024
But this right does not give an indigent defendant “the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zaki Malik Saleem Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Exceptional circumstances refer to the appointed counsel’s “ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Morris Swenson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A defendant’s constitutional right to be present [at trial] is grounded in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
State of Minnesota v. James Darnell Posey Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 440, 450 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Lawrance Bachmeier Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Exceptional circumstances are those that affect counsel’s “ability or competence to represent the client.”
Omar Kwabena Walford v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Michael Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Exceptional circumstances are those that affect appointed counsel ’s “ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis O’Neal Dillard Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Exceptional circumstances are those that affect appointe d counsel’s “ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Dorale Dominique Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
However, the right to court-appointed “counsel does not give [a de fendant] the unbridled right to be represented by coun sel of [their] own choosing.” d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001) (quotatio n omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Willie III Wair Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Angelo Caples-Guerra Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Exceptional circumstances that warrant the appointment of substitute counsel are “those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. David Ronald Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A person’s right to “counsel does not give [them] the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of [their] own choosing.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Michael James Opatz Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court -appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.” State v. Gillam
State of Minnesota v. Dustin Alexander Depiano Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(permitting a jury to “infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions” (quotation omitted)); see also Nelson, d at 861 (stating that “before a plea of guilty can be accepted, the trial judge must make certain that facts exist from which the defendant’s gu
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ray Quin, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
( stating that jury “may infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions”) .
State of Minnesota v. Dominique Demetris Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Cole Simmons Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Jon Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ttorney because he “believed his 10 attorney was unprepared to represent him, while defense counsel expressed frustration that [Urban] was too involved and filing his own motions.” But, without more, Ur ban’s dissatisfaction with his attorney does not present good cause to terminate him; to do so, he must demonstrate that his attorney lacked “ability and competence.” See State v. Gillam
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Lee Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Worthy, d at 278; (“[T]he right of an indigent to have counsel does not give him the unbridled right to be represented by counsel of his own choosing.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Omar Kwabena Walford Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[E]xceptional circumstances ar e t h o s e t h a t a f f e c t a c o u r t - a p p ointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Micheal Anthony Sparks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Gillam , d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Lavell Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Shane Zimmermann Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 440, 449 (Minn. 2001) .
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Frank Logan, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Dominick Dwayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Justin Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Excep tional circumstances “are those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Neal Grengs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court - appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
Michael Dejaris Denson v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The “exceptional circumstances” that necessitate appointment of substitute counsel are those that “affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Taeng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Exceptional circumstances” warranting substitution of counsel “are those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Rae Guillette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Rae Guillette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Exceptional circumstances are those that “affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Ross Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[E]xceptional circumstances are those that affect a court-appointed attorney’s ability or competence to represent the client.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2014