Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Seifert, 423 N.W.2d 368.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Travis Clay Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
9 Minnesota courts require pro se criminal defendants to comply with standard rules of court procedure and “[n]o extra benefits will be given to pro se litigants.”
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Junior Barry Minn. Ct. App. 2024
24, 2007); (“A defendant who elects to represent himself must still comply with all procedural rules.
State of Minnesota v. Ron Henry Lee Jaeger Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The state provides meaningful access to the courts “either by providing counsel for discretionary appeals or by providing an adequate law library.” (emphasis omitted), superseded on other grounds by rule, Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Mark Franklin, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The facts and the record before the jury contained testimony from witnesses 2 Minnesota courts require pro se crimina l defendants to comply with standard rules of court procedure, and “[n]o extra benefits will be given to pro se litigants.” ; see also Minn. R. Gen.
Christensen Law Office, PLLC v. Carl Green, Carl E. Christensen, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc. , , and 8 this court gives “[n]o extra benefits” to pro se litigants, superseded on other grounds by rule , Minn. R. Crim.
Gene Rechtzigel v. State of Minnesota, AND State of Minnesota, vs. Gene Rechtzigel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
While a self-represented appellant “is usually accorded some leeway in attempting to comply with court rules, he is still not relieved of the burden of, at leas t, adequately communicating to the court what it is he wants accomplished and by whom.” Carpenter v. Woodvale, Inc., see also State v. Seifert , (noting that Minnesota courts require self-represented criminal defendants to comply with standard rules of court procedure and that “[n]o ex tra benefits will be given to [self-represented] lit
Janet H. Krasner v. Gregory Hoffman, et al., Scott Neff, et al., Luke Koski, Lori Schultze, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 892, 896 (Minn. 2010) (-73 (Minn. 1988)).
Jeremia Joseph Loper v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In State v. Seifert, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the state provides prisoners meaningful access to the courts “ either by providing counsel for discretionary appeals or by providing an adequate la w library .”
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Schloegl 915 N.W.2d 14 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Seifert , , 372 (Minn. 1988) (emphasis omitted), superseded on other grounds by rule , Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Anton Leo Schloegl, III A17-0898, State of Minnesota, vs. Anton Leo Schloegl, III A17-1301 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Minnesota courts require pro se defendants to comply with the rules of criminal procedure, and “[n]o extra benefits will be given to pro se litigants.” (emphasis omitted), superseded on other grounds by rule, Minn. R. Crim.
Peter Louis John v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But “[t]he rules of procedure apply the same to all litigants whether represented by counsel or not,” and a “pro se defendant will be held to the standard of an attorney in presenting his appeal.” 10
State of Minnesota v. Jerrmaine Winston Knowles Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A “pro se defendant will be held to the standard of an a ttorney in presenting his appeal.” superseded by rule on other grounds, Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Haimah Boimah Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The rules of procedure and evidence apply to all litigants at trial; “[n]o extra benefits will be given to pro se litigants.”
Pamela Powell, individually, and on behalf of her minor child, Grace Powell Hernandez v. Commissioner of the Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Pamela Powell, individually, and on behalf of her minor child, Grace Powell Hernandez v. Commissioner of the Minnesota … Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ayesha Lynn Khan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ayesha Lynn Khan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Brian Triemert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. David Brian Triemert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And we note that Minnesota courts require pro se criminal defendants to comply with standard rules of court procedure and “[n]o extra benefits will be given to pro se litigants.” State v. Seifert, 5
State v. Fellegy 819 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Fellegy 819 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
Francis v. State 781 N.W.2d 892 Minn. 2010
-73 (Minn.1988) (concluding that a defendant can waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se on an appeal and a pro se defendant “will be held to the standard of an attorney in presenting his appeal”), superseded on other grounds by rule, Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Brown 758 N.W.2d 594 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
superseded by rule on other grounds, Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Gillespie 710 N.W.2d 289 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
superseded by rule on other grounds, Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Pederson 600 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
State v. Pederson 600 N.W.2d 451 Minn. 1999
We have not previously addressed the specific issue presented here, we considered a closely-related issue that lends direction to our deliberations.
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
Black v. State 560 N.W.2d 83 Minn. 1997
State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Harris v. State 470 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Harris v. State 470 N.W.2d 167 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
State v. Richards 456 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1990
-73 (Minn.1988); Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct.