Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354.

628 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mario Alejandro Lanas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
James Donald Dahl v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Edward Britton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Antoine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But appellant’s (an appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker Minn. Ct. App. 2019
At trial, Barker chose not to testify in his own defense, and therefore this version of events was not presented to the district court for consideratio n. Because an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court, this court need not consider arguments pertaining to Barker’s newly presented version of events.
Steven James Hayes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
n.11 (Minn. 2018) () (holding that some of appellant’s claims would not be considered on appeal because they were not raised before the postconviction court).
State of Minnesota v. Geovany Gonzalez Bernia Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ardana Jo Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , (stating that an appellate court will generally not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Jefferey Mariner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”).
State of Minnesota v. Titus Triston Miguel Mangun Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , (“[Appellate courts] generally will not decide issues which wer e not raised before the district court.”).
State v. Roy 920 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Roy 920 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State , , 357 (Minn. 1996).
Robert Sam Raisch, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-57 (Minn. 1996) (noting that a defendant must be prejudiced by appellate counsel’s failure to raise a claim).
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Barthman 917 N.W.2d 119 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Joseph Rodman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Richard Willmar Rapatt v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Moreover, an appellate court “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota v. Larry Donnell Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Duane Rossetti Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although we may addr ess ineffective-assistance- of-counsel claims not raised in district court or in a postconviction petition if the appellate record is sufficiently developed, Roby v. State , the 12 general rule is that a direct appeal from a conviction “is not the most appropriate way to raise issues of trial counsel’s ineffective representation .
State of Minnesota v. Casimir Robert Krithers Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Scott Alan Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Because Kepner did not raise his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in district court, that claim is not properly before us. See Roby v. State , (stating that appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court”).
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
Andersen v. State 913 N.W.2d 417 Minn. 2018
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) ("This court generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court...."
State of Minnesota v. Nathan William Quast Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) ("[Appellate] court[s] generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court....").
State of Minnesota v. Octavius Tobias Riddley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Daryll Gene Cagle Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Also, the state failed to raise this issue below, and appellate courts “generally will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota v. David Paul Corbine Minn. Ct. App. 2018
7 (Minn. 1996) (holding that this court will not address issues not raised in the district court ).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Chevelle Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Winbush 912 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Winbush 912 N.W.2d 678 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See Roby v. State , , 357 (Minn. 1996) (noting that an appellate court generally does not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal).
Gideon Charles Arrington, II v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Abimbola Bakare Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Generally, we “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.” Roby v. State
State of Minnesota v. Roger Edward Naghash Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996) (declining to hear an issue not raised in district court); n.1 (Minn. 1998) (stating that issues not argued in briefs are waived).
State of Minnesota v. Damon Michael DiMartino Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 354, 357 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Frank Lucellerson Tubbs Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, vs Floyd Erik Hyde Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court does not 4 D E C I S I O N As a threshold matter, respondent State of Minnesota argues that, because no motion to withdraw a guilty plea was presented to or considered by the district court, (noting that, generally, an appellate court will not consider matters not argued to and not considered by the district court) .
State of Minnesota v. Kirk Edward Wolhart Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ordinarily, appellate courts “will not decide issues which were not raised before the district court.”
State of Minnesota v. Neil Ray Lystad Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edwards 900 N.W.2d 722 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Daryl Robert Lavan Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating appellate courts generally do not decide issues not raised before the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Alan Norberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Han Nicholas Vorwerk Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Paul Scott Seeman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jasmine Nicole Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Roby v. State , (stating that appellate courts generally do not address matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Virgil Ernest Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2017