Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Christian, 657 N.W.2d 186.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Scot Perry Christian Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Scot Perry Christian Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. William Arthur Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “held that the district court may rescind the pro se status of a defendant who ‘deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct’ and 15 [has] stated that the court cannot allow a defendant to use the right of self-representation to delay proceedings or to force a mistrial.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Deshawn Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The Minnesota Supreme Court has also explained that “the court cannot allow a defendant to use the right of self-representation to delay proceedings or to force a mistrial.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Dione Davenport Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, d 186, 194 (Minn. 2003); Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Romeo Geraci Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Darrick Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Lorenzo Thomas Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[A] defendant’s request for self-representation should be granted where it is clear, unequivocal, and timely and the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Majed Issac Ijong Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 814 (1975)
State of Minnesota v. Joshua William Dwyer Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Barrett Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(declining to reach the merits of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because the record did not provide a sufficient basis to review appellant’s complaints).
State of Minnesota v. Freddy Ivan Bau Rocano Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Duke Ogeto Maroko Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Levell Darrell Booth Minn. Ct. App. 2022
When timely made, “the right to self-representation [i]s virtually absolute, subject only to the conditions necessary to a waiver of the right to assistance of counsel.” d 186, 191 (Minn. 2003) .
State of Minnesota v. Dale Eugene McDonald Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See State v. Christian , Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Larry Duane Lucas, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2022
court erred by refusing to further continue the trial is partly based on his assertion that he had “an absolute right” to exercise his right to self-representation “because jury voir dire had not begun.” The right of self-representation has been described as “virtually absolute, subject only to the conditions necessary to a waiver of the right to assistance of counsel.”
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Pierre Arnold Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Matthew James Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Gustafson, d at 321; rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. William Cleveland Alan Boykin Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 We note that “claims that require a court to explore conversations between attorney and client are best handled on a petition for postconviction relief.” d 246, 255 (Minn. 2001); (“The preferred procedure is to raise the issue of ineffective assistance in a petition for postconviction relief in the district court.”); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lynn Neitzel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Unlike cases in which a defendant requests to proceed pro se, or requests substitute 7 counsel, -79 (Minn. 1998), appellant requested neither.
State of Minnesota v. Eric Lee Fry Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 186, 194 (Minn. 2003); see Dukes, d at 254-55 (remanding for postconviction proceeding when trial counsel did not impliedly concede the defendant’s guilt until closing argument, whether the defendant acquiesced to counsel’s statements was unclear, and the defendant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was
State of Minnesota v. Chris Becerra Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In the Matter of the Welfare of: S.L.S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See, n.1 (Minn. 1995) (explaining that direct appeal from a judgment of conviction is not the most appropriate way to raise an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel claim because the appellate court conseque
Frank James Bammert v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Frank James Bammert v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brian Jeffrey Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, State v. Coe, 290 Minn. 537, 537−38
State v. Paige 765 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Paige 765 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Blom 682 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2004
State v. Wickner 673 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Wickner 673 N.W.2d 859 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(deciding not to reach merits of appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where record did not provide sufficient basis for review).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by