State v. Patterson

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Hernandez

    A19-0814 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2020)

    Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to their counsel of choice. State v. Patterson, 812 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Minn. 2012). "[T]he right stands on its own and does not derive from the Sixth Amendment's purpose of ensuring a fair trial."

  2. Patterson v. Minnesota

    Civil No. 14-2796 (DSD/FLN) (D. Minn. Jul. 16, 2015)

    The Minnesota Supreme Court granted discretionary review on one issue and affirmed the court of appeals's decision on April 25, 2012. State v. Patterson, 812 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2012).

  3. Pearson v. State

    891 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 2017)   Cited 173 times
    Stating a ruling based on an erroneous view of the law is an abuse of discretion

    1991).To determine whether a lawyer has a conflict of interest, we turn to the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. SeeState v. Patterson , 812 N.W.2d 106, 112 (Minn. 2012) (applying the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct to determine whether an attorney had a conflict of interest in a criminal case). To establish that his trial counsel had a conflict of interest, Pearson must show that "a significant risk" existed that his lawyer's representation would be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to a former client.

  4. State v. 3M Co.

    845 N.W.2d 808 (Minn. 2014)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that, for a waiver defense, "intent to waive [a contractual provision] may be inferred from conduct"

    We review the district court's decision regarding disqualification of counsel for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Patterson, 812 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Minn.2012). A district court abuses its discretion when it bases its decision on an erroneous view of the law or when it renders a decision that is contrary to the facts in the record.

  5. State v. Mohamed

    A17-0967 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018)

    "It is well settled that criminal defendants who do not require appointed counsel have a right to their counsel of choice." State v. Patterson, 812 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Minn. 2012) (citing Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 58 (1932) ("It is hardly necessary to say that . . . a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice.")). "This right derives from the constitutional guarantee that '[t]he accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.'" Patterson, 812 N.W.2d at 111 (quoting Minn. Const. art. I, § 6) (citing U.S. Const. amend. VI).

  6. Lynch v. State

    No. A16-0801 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2017)

    In any event, the caselaw indicates that a defendant's right to the counsel of his choice is limited. State v. Patterson, 812 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Minn. 2012). There is no "absolute right to retain counsel who has actual or potential conflicts of interest."

  7. Patterson v. State

    No. A13-0274 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    On direct appeal, this court affirmed appellant's convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by disqualifying Newmark, and the disqualification did not violate appellant's right to his counsel of choice. State v. Patterson, 796 N.W.2d 516, 527 (Minn. App. 2011), aff'd, 812 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2012). This court also rejected appellant's claim that he was deprived of conflict-free counsel by Voss's representation, concluding that appellant had validly waived his right to conflict-free counsel.

  8. State v. A.B.

    247 W. Va. 495 (W. Va. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    This right includes the right to conflict-free counsel. Even though the source of this right is not the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, cases applying the effective assistance of counsel guarantee of the Sixth Amendment can be used to analyze Fourteenth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the governing principles and policies are coextensive."); State v. Patterson , 796 N.W.2d 516, 523 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), aff'd , 812 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2012) (even where defendant waives a conflict of interest, "in cases involving successive representation, disqualification may be required if the defense lawyer previously represented a state's witness by assisting that witness in presenting testimony before a tribunal investigating the subject matter of the current criminal charges against the defendant, and the defense lawyer's obligation to the defendant at trial requires the lawyer to discredit the state's witness's trial testimony that is substantially related to the witness's former testimony."). In its simplest formulation, " ‘[c]onflict-free representation’ means ‘assistance by an attorney whose allegiance to his client is not diluted by conflicting interests or inconsistent obligations.’

  9. State v. A. B.

    No. 20-0744 (W. Va. Nov. 18, 2022)

    This right includes the right to conflict-free counsel. Even though the source of this right is not the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, cases applying the effective assistance of counsel guarantee of the Sixth Amendment can be used to analyze Fourteenth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the governing principles and policies are coextensive."); State v. Patterson, 796 N.W.2d 516, 523 (Minn.Ct.App. 2011), aff'd, 812 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2012) (even where defendant waives a conflict of interest, "in cases involving successive representation, disqualification may be required if the defense lawyer previously represented a state's witness by assisting that witness in presenting testimony before a tribunal investigating the subject matter of the current criminal charges against the defendant, and the defense lawyer's obligation to the defendant at trial requires the lawyer to discredit the state's witness's trial testimony that is substantially related to the witness's former testimony.")

  10. State v. Misters

    No. A21-1654 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    A murder occurs when the victim dies. State v. Patterson, 796 N.W.2d 516, 532 (Minn.App. 2011), aff'd, 812 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. 2012); see Minn. Stat. § 609.19, subd. 1(1) (2020) (stating that a person commits second-degree murder by "[causing] the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another. . .")