Monthly Archives: February 2026

DEMAND FOR SUBSTITUTE PUBLIC DEFENDER: How to Avoid Reversible Error

Posted on February 19, 2026 | 1 comment

SUBJECT: Training Update 26-03 – Substitute Public Defender Requests: Avoiding Reversible Error

Colleagues,

I have just posted a new Minnesota Judicial Training Update (26-03) addressing a situation every judge and criminal practitioner eventually encounters:

QUESTION: When a Defendant demands a new public defender in the middle of a criminal case, what is the trial judge legally required to do — and what common mistakes can create reversible error?

These moments often arise unexpectedly — usually at emotionally charged hearings — and they present real risk for reversible error if the court responds too quickly or relies on common but incorrect assumptions about substitute counsel requests.

This update provides a clear, practical framework designed for real courtroom use, including:

  • The three general rules that always apply under Minnesota law
  • What a judge should never say when a defendant requests new counsel
  • A structured three-step approach for handling the request on the record
  • The “searching inquiry” standard explained in practical terms
  • A sample judicial findings script that can be adapted immediately

The goal is simple: help judges and attorneys create a clean, reviewable record while maintaining courtroom control and protecting the integrity of the attorney-client relationship.

If you regularly handle criminal cases — whether as judge, prosecutor, or defense counsel — I think you will find this update both practical and immediately usable.

👉 The link to the full update is below.

As always, thank you for your continued commitment to thoughtful and professional courtroom practice.

Warm regards,

Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge       alan@xmartinelaw.com                                                                                                                                                             

1 Comment

Posted in 2026 Martine Law Firm, Substitute Public Defender

Tagged , , , , ,

Calculating Criminal History Scores: In-State vs. Out-of-State Convictions (This is a Legal Landmine for Both the State and Defense)

Posted on February 2, 2026 | Leave a comment

SUBJECT: New Training Update: Out-of-State Convictions — A Sentencing Trap You Can’t Ignore

Dear Colleagues,

I’m sharing a new Martine Law Training Update addressing a deceptively common — and highly consequential — sentencing issue: how out-of-state convictions may (and may not) be used when calculating a defendant’s criminal history score.

In State v. Johnson (Minn. App. Jan. 20, 2026), the Court of Appeals makes clear that relying on a PSI alone to establish out-of-state convictions is a legal landmine. The case also delivers a critical lesson with real-world consequences: whether defense counsel objected at sentencing directly affected the remedy on appeal — including whether the State got a second chance to fix the record.

This update breaks down:

  • What Minn. R. Evid. 1005 requires (and what it doesn’t),
  • Why sentencing is an evidentiary determination, not a ministerial step,
  • How a single objection — or silence — can preserve or destroy appellate leverage,
  • Practical best practices for prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges.

If you handle felony sentencing, review PSIs, advise clients at plea hearings, or preside over criminal cases, this is essential reading. I encourage you to read it, download it, and share it with colleagues who may not realize how high the stakes are until it’s too late.

The link to the full update is below.

Warm regards,
Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former Minnesota District Court Judge

Leave a comment

Posted in 2026 Martine Law Firm, Criminal History Score, SENTENCING

Tagged , , , , , ,