Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Verschelde, 595 N.W.2d 192.

42 citing documents.

Robert Earl Leatherberry, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
2.B.1.g; see also State v. Verschelde , -96 (Minn. 1999) (noting that a stay of adjudication is not a judgment of guilty).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
Amanda Jean Lunzer v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Amanda Jean Lunzer v. State of Minnesota 874 N.W.2d 819 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Smith relied upon the Minnesota Supreme Court’s -96 (Minn. 1999), which held 2 We note that the record does not contain evidence of a subsequent charge.
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Lopp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Lopp Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 (Minn. App. 2007) (explaining that procedure set forth in Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Moody 806 N.W.2d 874 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Allinder 746 N.W.2d 923 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
-95 (Minn.2005) (reaffirming holding that stays of adjudication are pretrial orders for purposes of appeal).
State v. Knoll 739 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Knoll 739 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Thompson 720 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2006
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
State v. Lee 706 N.W.2d 491 Minn. 2005
that “a stay of adjudication is considered a pretrial order for purposes of appeal.” ( aff'd mem., ).
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Wright 699 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Respondent, in support of his argument that the state’s appeal is untimely
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lee 693 N.W.2d 216 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. LaRose 673 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(remanding to allow defendant to withdraw consent to stay of adjudication which was premised on the mistaken belief that he was preserving right to appeal pretrial issue).
State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 656 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Smith 656 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
3; (holding this court has jurisdiction to hear discretionary “appeal”).
State v. Halseth 653 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Halseth 653 N.W.2d 782 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Busse 644 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2002
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
In re the Welfare of R.J.E. 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
Smith v. State 615 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Smith v. State 615 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
and denied Smith’s request to extend discretionary review.