Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Worthy, 583 N.W.2d 270.

193 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joel Patrick Rodriguez 889 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees criminal defendants a right to be present at all stages of the trial where his absence might frustrate the fairness of the proceedings.” (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 n.15, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2533 n.15 (1975)).
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Rae Guillette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Rae Guillette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The decision to grant or deny a request for substitute counsel lies within the [district] court’s discretion.” ().
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David John Young Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abel Gonyamonquah Miamen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Crum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, e.g., State v. 3 Worthy, (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied a motion for a continuance a few days before trial and defendant did not have good cause to dismiss court-appointed attorney); Vance, d at 358-59 (finding no abuse of discretion where district court denied a motion for a continua
State of Minnesota v. William John Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William John Cross Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION Whether to continue a trial so a defendant may obtain private counsel to replace a court-appointed attorney is within the discretion of the district court, “based on all facts and circumstances surrounding the request.” 1 “A defendant may not demand a continuance to delay the proceedings or by arbitrarily attempting to substitute another attorney.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Albert Silas Garner, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert Silas Garner, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that where a defendant fired his attorney and had familiarity with the criminal justice system, an on-the-record inquiry regarding waiver was unnecessary); -13 (Minn. 1990) (holding 2 We encourage district courts to use Form 11, Petition to P
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Richard Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Jacqueay Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Jacqueay Roberson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 1023 (1938); -76 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rico Patrick Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See State v. Voorhees, 596 (concluding that personal tension between counsel and defendant was not an exceptional circumstance); (noting that general disagreement with counsel’s assessment of the case was not an exceptional circumstance).
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 1023 (1938); -76 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yusuf Ahmed Osman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Whether to grant a continuance so a defendant may obtain a private attorney to replace court-appointed counsel is within the discretion of the district court, “based on all facts and circumstances surrounding the request.”
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Rhoads, d at 886; (stating that a valid waiver may exist even if the record lacks a detailed colloquy between the defendant and the district court); -71 (Minn. App. 1994) (holding that a defendant’s request to proceed pro se—reaffirmed at three separate district court proceedings
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Antoine Davis 864 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 2015
-78 (Minn. 1998) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by proceeding with the trial after the defendants voluntarily left the courtroom).
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ismael Thiam Dore Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A defendant also should “be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.’” (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 2541 (1975)).
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Catherine C. Chapman, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In the Matter of the Conservatorship of: Catherine C. Chapman, Protected Person. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The granting of a continuance is within the district court’s discretion, “based on all facts and circumstances surrounding the request.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Thomas David Newman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The right to be present may be waived if done so “competently and intelligently.”
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“We will only overturn a finding of a valid waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel if that finding is clearly erroneous.” () (quotation marks omitted).
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
(holding that defendants’ waiver of their right to counsel was voluntarily made, in part, because they were able to consult with counsel before they made the decision); (finding that waiver of right to counsel was voluntary, because court could presume p
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
State v. Munt 831 N.W.2d 569 Minn. 2013
When a defendant raises complaints about the effectiveness of appointed counsel’s representation and requests substitute counsel, the district court must grant such a request “only if exceptional circumstances exist and the demand is timely and reasonably made.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
State v. Rhoads 813 N.W.2d 880 Minn. 2012
1461 (1938); -76 *885 (Minn.1998).
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Rhoads 802 N.W.2d 794 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Criminal defendants also have a “corollary constitutional right to choose to represent themselves in them own trial.” (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-820 , 95 S.Ct.
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Haggins 798 N.W.2d 86 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Whether the waiver of the right to counsel is valid depends on “the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” -76 (Minn.1998) (quotation omitted).
Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
Vickla v. State 793 N.W.2d 265 Minn. 2011
Previously, we observed that the term “career offender” “necessarily implies that the convictions may span over one’s lifetime.”
State v. Finnegan 784 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2010