The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility has filed a petition and amended petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent Thomas Allen Rothstein committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline, namely, misappropriation of funds from the law firm in which respondent was a partner and making false entries into the law firm’s books to conceal the misappropriation, in violation of Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and (c). In October 2009, respondent pled guilty to felony theft by swindle in an amount greater than $85,000, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.52 (2008).

State v. Jones · 2009 2 citations

*500 OPINION ANDERSON, G. BARRY, Justice. On February 16, 2007, a Scott County jury found appellant Don Antoine Jones guilty of three felonies: check forgery (greater than $2,500), Minn. Stat. § 609.631, subds. 2, 4(2) (2008); offering a forged check (greater than $2,500), Minn. Stat. § 609.631, subds. 3, 4(2) (2008); and theft by swindle (greater than $2,500), Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subds. 2(4), 3(2) (2008). The district court convicted Jones on all three charges and sentenced him on the check forgery charge to 30 months with the Commissioner of Corrections. The court of appeals affirmed his conviction, and Jones raises the following four issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred by denying Jones's application for a public defender; (2) whether Jones's waiver of counsel was valid; (3) whether the State committed misconduct; and (4) whether the district court erred by not appointing advisory counsel for Jones. We affirm. Jones and his girlfriend, Shannon Duffney, co-owned Shanndyn's Towing & Recovery, and jointly opened two business accounts at TCF Bank. The accounts were opened in late 2004 and were both closed by August 2005. On January 9, 2006, Jones deposited to an account at Guaranty Bank an alleged payroll check drawn on one of the closed TCF accounts in the amount of $3,600. The check bore the signature of Vicky Duffney, Shannon's mother, and it was endorsed by Jones. Two days later, TCF returned the check to Guaranty Bank because the TCF account had been closed. Guaranty Bank demanded repayment from Jones, but Jones never repaid the money. Guaranty Bank contacted the police on January 21, 2006, and in the course of the investigation, Detective Laura Kvasnicka learned that Vicky Duffney denied signing the check and had nothing to do with Shanndyn's Towing & Recovery. Detective Kvasnicka also taped an interview with Shannon, in which Shannon confirmed that the towing business was closed and that the signature on the check was not her mother's. Jones was arrested and appeared without counsel for his bail hearing on February 27, 2006. The district court informed Jones that he had a right to counsel and could apply for services from the public defender. Jones posted bail, and on March 3, 2006, he told the district court, "I'm going to get a private attorney." Jones stated that he could find one by May, and the State asked for a continuance of the hearing. On May 5, 2006, Jones appeared without counsel for his first appearance. Jones applied for a public defender, but the district court denied his application. No rationale on the record was given for the denial. The application, dated May 5, 2006, indicated that Jones had no job but had no expenses for rent or food because he lived with his sister. The application showed that Jones also lived with his 1-year-old daughter, and his girlfriend, Shannon, who was earning $2,080 a month. Jones owned a car and had monthly expenses of less than $1,500 for the car and child support. The value of the car was equal to the debt owed on the car. At the top of the application, the words "deny over guidelines" were circled. On the record, the district court stated that this was the second time Jones had been denied a public defender, and recommended that he seek a continuance to retain counsel from the court's list of reduced-fee attorneys. Jones replied, "I can hire one myself in probably about a month. I am probably going to have to sell my truck to pay for anythat was probably the reason why I *501 was denied the first time, because of my truck." Jones told the district court on June 9, 2006, that he was denied twice for a public defender and that none of the reduced-fee attorneys worked out for him. The district court gave Jones a copy of the complaint and reiterated that he could apply for a public defender or that a list of reduced-fee attorneys could be provided. Jones then waived his right to an attorney for the first appearance. On September 8, 2006, Jones appeared for his omnibus hearing. After speaking with Jones, the prosecutor informed the district court that Jones wanted to set the case for trial. Jones told the district court that he was "kind of getting a little stable" and could contact one of the reduced-fee attorneys. The district court set the jury trial for a date in January so that Jones could appear in court with a lawyer. Jones appeared for trial, again without counsel, on January 16, 2007. Before voir dire began, Jones objected to proceeding without counsel, claiming that he had wrongly been denied a public defender three times. The district court (but not the same district court judge who had presided over earlier proceedings) noted that his previous application was denied based on his income, expenses, and his live-in girlfriend's income, and the district court stated that it would not review that decision. By this time, Jones was employed, and the district court noted that Jones's current earnings would disqualify him from a public defender. The district court also stated that Jones's failure to retain counsel during the previous continuances meant that no further continuances would be granted. Jones mentioned that he had a lawyer for an open case in Dakota County, but that he could not afford counsel for another case. He stated that the court kept offering him a public defender application or a reduced-fee attorney list, but neither option worked for him. After a brief recess, the district court stated that Jones's Dakota County lawyer was willing to represent Jones but was waiting for his retainer to be paid by Jones before undertaking to represent Jones on another matter. The district court acknowledged that "Jones has been doing the things he has to do but just not finalizing them." The jury trial was continued to February 14, 2007, and the court warned Jones that his attorney should file a certificate of representation by January 30. But on February 14, Jones appeared again without counsel. The district court told him, "[M]y plan is to have a Jury Trial today and assume that you have given up your right to have an attorney represent you since you have chosen not to retain anybody and have them here today." Jones argued that he had wrongly been denied a public defender because his girlfriend had a job. When Jones objected to the district court's statement that he was choosing to represent himself, the court had an extended conversation with Jones about his financial situation. As a result, the court ordered Jones to fill out another application for a public defender to make the record clear. The application dated February 14, 2007, indicated that Jones was employed, making $12 an hour plus overtime and was getting a raise to $15 an hour. Shannon was also working, and the two were making at least $4,500 a month together. Jones listed expenses for rent, food, daycare, and child support totaling less than $3,000 a month. The court collector explained on the record that Jones was ineligible because his income alone, including overtime, was greater than 125% of the poverty guidelines. The district court, without saying more, denied Jones's application. *502 Jones appeared for jury trial that afternoon. The prosecutor asked the district court "to get an informed waiver of counsel on the record." The court conducted a brief waiver of counsel colloquy, in which Jones acknowledged that he had the right to an attorney, that he had been refused a public defender four or five times, and that he had been unable to retain counsel on his own. Jones agreed that he would represent himself. The jury found Jones guilty on all three charges, and the court of appeals affirmed his conviction.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Chambers v. State · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Spence · 2009 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Simion · 2008 14 citations

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Andrade · 2007 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Ross · 2007 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Chauvin · 2006 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Clark · 2006 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Thompson · 2006 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Henderson · 2005 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Modtland · 2005 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Slaughter · 2005 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Lee · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Smith · 2004 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Larson · 2000 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Chambers · 1999 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Nerz · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re Disciplinary Action Against McNabb · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Church · 1998 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Terpstra · 1996 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hince · 1995 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Ostrem · 1995 2 citations

In December 1992, Jason Alan Ostrem was charged with second-degree burglary and theft. In October 1993, Ostrem was convicted of aiding and abetting second-degree burglary and aiding and abetting theft. See Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2(a) (1994); Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1) (1994); Minn. Stat. § 609.05 (1994). The court of appeals reversed Ostrem’s conviction on three grounds: 1) denial of due process resulting from a single-photo identification process; 2) impermissible appearance of partiality resulting from the trial court’s instruction on aiding and abetting; and 3) insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions. State v. Ostrem, 520 N.W.2d 426 (Minn.App.1994), pet. for rev. granted (Minn., Oct. 27, 1994). The state appeals and, in accordance with our reasoning below, we reverse.

In Re Petition for Disciplinary Action Against Shoemaker · 1994 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Zacher · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Dahl · 1993 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · 1992 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In Re Disciplinary Action Against Stroble · 1992 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Hill v. State · 1992 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Krejci · 1990 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

In Re the Welfare of D.D.S. · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Roden · 1986 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Olson · 1986 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Coleman · 1985 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jackson · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Eppler · 1985 1 citation

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of three counts of theft of over $150, Minn. Stat. 609.52 (1984), based on a single shoplifting incident in which she took clothes having a total retail market value of $362 from a department store in a shopping center in Roseville. The trial court formally adjudicated defendant guilty of all three counts, stayed imposition of sentence for 5 years, and placed defendant on probation, conditioned on defendant’s making restitution in the amount of $181 and on defendant’s performing 50 hours of community service. On appeal, defendant seeks (1) a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting eyewitness identification evidence and an exculpatory statement defendant gave to police and in instructing the jury that it is the duty of attorneys to present evidence on behalf of their clients, or (2) the vacation of two of the three convictions pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (1984). We hold that defendant received a fair trial and was properly found guilty of theft, but we vacate two of the three convictions pursuant to section 609.04.

State v. Lone · 1985 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Deans · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Fernow · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Nelson · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Ibarra · 1984 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Christy Pontiac-GMC, Inc. · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Rachuy · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Russell · 1984 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Nash · 1983 2 citations

Deloch told police that defendant committed the crime spontaneously and that he did not intentionally aid or participate with defendant in committing it. Apparently he was never charged in connection with the incident. Defendant, however, was charged with felony theft from the person, Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2(1) and 3(3)(a) (1982), which carries a maximum of 5 years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine.

State v. Matilla · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kirsch · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Dahms · 1982 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Chase · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Williams · 1982 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Bowley · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Chryst · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Root · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Walker · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Murto · 1982 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Fields · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Dahms · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Makela · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Crain · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Ostroot · 1981 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Marburger · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Herme · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Nelson · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Bekkerus · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Johnson · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Moore · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Terry · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Stith · 1980 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Eaton · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Ferraro · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Sperl · 1979 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Hanson · 1979 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Thomas Herrera · 2035 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Edward James Lafore, Jr. · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Larry Kenneth Alexander v. Tyson's Towing and Transport LLC, GSIC Southview LLC, ... · 2025 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Roald Dean Marth · 2025 21 citations

+ 21 more citations in this opinion.