Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328.
- Scruggs v. State 484 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1992
- Scruggs v. State 484 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 1992
- State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Brovold 477 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Poole 472 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Poole 472 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Oslund 469 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
- State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Ross 451 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
- State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
- State v. Buchanan 431 N.W.2d 542 Minn. 1988
- State v. Thompson 430 N.W.2d 151 Minn. 1988
-
State v. Thompson
430 N.W.2d 151
Minn. 1988
Cf., a child sex abuse case that preceded the Supreme Court’s decision in Stincer in which we referred in passing to the right of a defendant to be present at a hearing to determine the competency of a child witness as a "constitutional” right.
- State v. Thompson 427 N.W.2d 266 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
-
State v. Thompson
427 N.W.2d 266
Minn. Ct. App. 1988
where the supreme court discussed this issue when addressing appellant’s argument that his counsel was incompetent.
- State v. Scruggs 421 N.W.2d 707 Minn. 1988
-
State v. Scruggs
421 N.W.2d 707
Minn. 1988
(proper method to appeal denial of motion to remove judge is writ of prohibition).
- State v. Lau 409 N.W.2d 275 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Schwab 409 N.W.2d 876 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Lau
409 N.W.2d 275
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Inasmuch as competency determinations are within the trial court’s discretion, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that R.D.
-
State v. Schwab
409 N.W.2d 876
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court stated “an appeal from a conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise issues of trial counsel’s ineffective representation.” Id.
- State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Newman 408 N.W.2d 894 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Struss 404 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Struss 404 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Grover 402 N.W.2d 163 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
- State v. Yeager 399 N.W.2d 648 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
-
State v. Yeager
399 N.W.2d 648
Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Furthermore, the “proper remedy to pursue when a motion to remove has been denied is to seek a writ of prohibition.”
- Garasha v. State 393 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- Garasha v. State 393 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Lopez 390 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Lopez 390 N.W.2d 306 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Fitzgerald 382 N.W.2d 892 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Carver 380 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Eberhardt 379 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Eberhardt 379 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
- State v. Yant 376 N.W.2d 487 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Yant
376 N.W.2d 487
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
332 n. 5 (Minn.1984), a direct appeal is not the best way to challenge the effectiveness of counsel since no post-trial affidavits are available to explain why counsel selected to pursue his chosen course of conduct.
- State v. Dorsch 368 N.W.2d 26 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-
State v. Dorsch
368 N.W.2d 26
Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Not only is a direct appeal an inappropriate way of raising this issue, *28 n. 5 (Minn.1984); the record shows that appellant received reasonably effective assistance of counsel.
- State v. Hanson 366 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Hanson 366 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
- State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1985
- State v. Cermak 365 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1985
-
State v. Cermak
365 N.W.2d 243
Minn. 1985
(1984); State v. (James) Cermak