Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brodie, 532 N.W.2d 557.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shane Ryan Oneil Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Because appellant is presumed to know the consequences of discharging his court-appointed counsel, he made his waiver “with eyes open.” See id.; (distinguishing cases in which record is silent on defendant’s waiver with cases in which defendants “fire” their counsel).
Omar Kwabena Walford, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Worthy , -76 (Minn. 1998); State v. Brodie , Finne v. State , review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In Worthy, as an example of circumstances that demonstrated a valid waiver without an on-the- record colloquy.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The supreme court affirmed the conviction after concluding that the defendant’s waiver was valid because it was “clear from the record that defendant understood the consequences of proceeding pro se.” Id.; (affirming conviction and rejecting invalid-waiver challenge because “defendant knew that he did not have a right to a different public defender but would have to represent himself if he did not accept the services of the public defender”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
in which the defendant was provided with an appointed attorney and later fired the attorney.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 557, 557 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Unlike the defendants in Worthy and State v. Brodie , appellant did not unequivocally terminate court-appointed counsel.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
orthy, -77 (Minn. 1998) (concluding waiver was still valid even without advisement of charges or potential punishments because co-defendants were represented by counsel for over a month, they knew they were responsible for their own defense, they had prior experience with the criminal justice system, and the district court had appointed standby counsel); d 557 (Minn. 1995) (concluding waiver was valid because the defendant was represented by counsel for a month prior; the defendant knew he would
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Joseph Shane 883 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“This is not a case in which the record is silent on whether the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel.”).
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
The Minnesota Supreme Court has found the initial waiver of counsel valid in circumstances where “the district court failed to follow a particular procedure.” (citing Worthy, d at 275-76 ; ).
State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Garibaldi 726 N.W.2d 823 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
*828 the supreme court held that a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel when he was given counsel but fired his attorney, and the original public defender assisted the defendant at trial.
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Finne v. State 648 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 614 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 614 N.W.2d 718 Minn. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.L.H. 604 N.W.2d 97 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
State v. Hage 595 N.W.2d 200 Minn. 1999
rev'd on other grounds, a case which dealt specifically with the allocation of the burden of persuasion for the defense of necessity, the defense on which Hage relies.
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
State v. Martin 591 N.W.2d 481 Minn. 1999
we issued an order reversing the court of appeals because, in part, the defendant had not made a prima facie showing of the defense of justification by necessity so as to require a jury instruction where the crime charged was aggravated driving while intoxicated.
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Worthy 583 N.W.2d 270 Minn. 1998
State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997
State v. Camacho 561 N.W.2d 160 Minn. 1997