Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328.

107 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Anthony Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Lee Anthony Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. M. B., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Ronald Lee Schlangen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
1 (2008);11 (vacating eleven second-degree criminal- sexual-conduct convictions because they concerned the same acts as eleven first -degree criminal-sexual-conduct convictions); (vacating one of two different first-degree criminal -sexual-conduct convict
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This is true because we do not have the benefit of all the facts regarding why defense counsel acted as he did.” n.5 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
because [appellate courts] do not have the benefit of all the facts regarding why defense counsel acted as he did.” n. 5 (Minn. 1984).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
because [appellate courts] do not have the benefit of all the facts regarding why defense counsel acted as [s]he did.” n.6 (Minn. 1984 ).
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
State v. Fraga 898 N.W.2d 263 Minn. 2017
-34 (Minn. 1984) (stating that reversals based on cumulative error typically involve serious errors with weak evidence of guilt).
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alton Dominique Finch 865 N.W.2d 696 Minn. 2015
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Peter 825 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
On the other hand, offense-related aggravating factors may be used to support not only such a dispositional departure but, alternatively, an upward durational departure.”); (holding that likelihood of future criminal behavior is not valid reason for durational departure); (holding that post-offense remorse is not appropriate factor for durational departure); (holding that
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
State v. Jacobs 802 N.W.2d 748 Minn. 2011
(noting that when a motion to remove has been denied, “the proper remedy ...
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Grigsby 806 N.W.2d 101 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
[is] not the appropriate way for appellant to obtain review of the denial of his motion to remove.” , 725 n. 3 (Minn.2001) (); (stating that to preserve the peremptory-removal issue, a party must seek a writ of prohibition from the court of appeals).
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Swinger 800 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
State v. Lessley 779 N.W.2d 825 Minn. 2010
a writ of prohibition.’ ” (quoting State v. Cer *832 mak, ).
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Dahlin 753 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
We have held, however, that “[t]he proper remedy to pursue when a motion to remove has been denied is * * * a writ of prohibition.”
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
State v. Azure 621 N.W.2d 721 Minn. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Breaux 620 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
2 Finally, “[i]n matters of procedure rather than of substance, the Rules of Criminal Procedure take precedence over statutes to the extent there is any inconsistency.”
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Ascheman 589 N.W.2d 486 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding that use of improper verdict form not itself reversible error when accompanied by correct instructions).
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Berg v. State 557 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(stating that a direct appeal is not the most appropriate way to raise an ineffective assistance claim); , 332 n. 5 (Minn.1984) (same); (reiterating that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is properly raised in postcon-viction proceedings and not on direct appeal); (noting that ineffective assistance of couns
State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
State v. Johnson 514 N.W.2d 551 Minn. 1994
Both branches agree that “[i]n matters of procedure rather than substance, the Rules of Criminal Procedure take precedence over statutes to the extent that there is any inconsistency.”
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
102 n. 3 (Minn.1990); , 332 n. 5 (Minn.1984).
State v. Tuttle 504 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Tuttle 504 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
332 n. 5 (Minn.1984) (district court in best position to judge effectiveness of representation).