Contact attorney Anders Erickson if you need an experienced criminal appeal attorney to assist you in appealing your conviction or sentence, or if you are an attorney and need assistance representing your client on appeal.

Mr. Erickson has represented clients in over 200 appeals before the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Minnesota Supreme Court and in postconviction proceedings in district courts throughout the State of Minnesota.

Mr. Erickson has the experience to advise clients through the process of a criminal appeal, the legal knowledge to know what arguments to present to the appellate courts, and the skill to persuasively advocate for a positive outcome on appeal.

The following are examples of results Mr. Erickson has obtained on behalf of clients on appeal:

Barrow v. State, 862 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 2015) (Rice County).

• Following the district court’s denial of client’s petition for postconviction relief, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirming the postconviction court’s order, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted Mr. Erickson’s petition for review and reversed client’s third-degree sale of a controlled substance conviction.  The supreme court reversed after agreeing that client’s conduct of handing cocaine to another person did not fall within the statutory definition of “sell.”

State v. Struzyk, 869 N.W.2d 280 (Minn. 2015) (Benton County).

• Following the Minnesota Court of Appeals issuing an opinion affirming client’s fourth-degree assault conviction, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted Mr. Erickson’s petition for review, reversed client’s conviction, and remanded for a new trial.  The supreme court reversed client’s conviction after agreeing that the district court committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that the client committed a “physical assault.”

State v. Degroot, 946 N.W.2d 354, 364–65 (Minn. 2020) (Nobles County).

• After the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s sentence, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the portion of the court of appeals’ decision reversing client’s sentence.  The supreme court’s decision resulted in client receiving probation instead a prison sentence.

State v. Dortch, No. A18-1242 (Minn. App. April 23, 2019) (order opinion) (Ramsey County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s attempted first and second-degree murder convictions and remanded for a new trial after agreeing that client’s Sixth Amendment right to autonomy was violated when his trial attorney made concession during closing argument that client did not act in self-defense.

State v. Bergendahl, No. A19-1450, 2020 WL 5626091 (Minn. App. Sept. 21, 2020) (Le Sueur County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s first-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction and remanded for a new trial after agreeing that the district court committed reversible error by allowing a biased juror to sit on the jury at client’s trial.

State v. Olson, No. A20-1455, 2022 WL 893790 (Minn. App. Mar. 28, 2022) (Steele County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s first-degree possession of a controlled substance conviction and remanded for a new trial after agreeing that the district court committed reversible error by allowing the State to introduce prior bad act Spreigl evidence at client’s trial.

State v. Thompson, 988 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Minn. App. 2023) (Jackson County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order finding client not competent to stand trial for the charge of second-degree murder because the district court did not allocate the burden of proof, the district court failed to apply the greater weight of the evidence standard, and the district court did not properly consider all of the evidence presented at the competency hearing.

State v. Maddox, 825 N.W.2d 140, 142 (Minn. App. 2013) (Scott County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, and concluded for the first time in Minnesota, that client had a right under the Minnesota Constitution to have the assistance of counsel at his restitution hearing.  The court of appeals reversed the restitution order and remanded for a new restitution hearing.

State v. Johnson, No. A15-1283, 2016 WL 3884332 (Minn. App. July 18, 2016) (Anoka County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s fifth-degree possession of methamphetamine and storing methamphetamine in the presence of a child convictions after agreeing that the district court committed reversible error by admitting unnoticed, irrelevant, and highly prejudicial prior bad act Spreigl evidence.

State v. Thompson, No. A16-0097, 2017 WL 389939 (Minn. App. Jan. 17, 2017) (Wabasha County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s threats of violence conviction and remanded for a new trial after agreeing that the district court committed reversible error by: (1) not properly instructing the jury on the specific crime of violence that client allegedly threatened and (2) failing to require the jury to return a unanimous verdict.

State v. Foster, No. A21-0533, 2022 WL 351214 (Minn. App. Feb. 7, 2022)(St. Louis County)

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s four felony convictions for violating a domestic-abuse no-contact order (DANCO) and remanded to the district court after agreeing that the factual basis supporting his guilty plea was invalid.

State v. Winsor, No. A15-1056, 2016 WL 1619262 (Minn. App. Apr. 25, 2016) (Hennepin County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s stalking and violation of an order for protection convictions after agreeing with client that the district court violated client’s constitutional right to counsel.

State v. Parmenter, No. A14-0368, 2015 WL 404516 (Minn. App. Feb. 2, 2015) (Cass County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s first-degree DWI conviction after agreeing that client’s trial, which was held under Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.01, subdivision 4, was procedurally invalid.

State v. Barnes, No. A12-1307, 2013 WL 401668 (Minn. App. Feb. 4, 2013) (Hennepin County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s 189-month prison sentence and ordered the district court to impose a sentence that did not exceed 144 months after agreeing that client’s 189-month sentence was an illegal sentence. 

State v. Torke, No. A21-0812 (Minn. App.  Jan. 5, 2022) (order opinion) (Kandiyohi County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s restitution order and remanded for a new restitution hearing after agreeing that the district court violated client’s constitutional right to counsel.

State v. Beganovic, 974 N.W.2d 278 (Minn. App. 2022) (Otter Tail County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s sentence and remanded for resentencing after agreeing that his criminal-history score was incorrect. 

State v. Wierson, No. A18-1281, 2019 WL 4409392 (Minn. App. Sept. 16, 2019) (Dakota County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s first-degree conspiracy to sell a controlled substance, aiding and abetting first-degree sale of a controlled substance, and child endangerment convictions after agreeing that the State failed to prove client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Barenburg, No. A15-0607, 2016 WL 1290774 (Minn. App. Apr. 4, 2016) (Sherburne County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s conviction for making a 911 call while knowing that no emergency exists after agreeing that the State failed to prove client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Niesen, No. A13-1085, 2014 WL 5312985 (Minn. App. Oct. 20, 2014) (Kanabec County).

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed one of client’s failure to register convictions after agreeing that the State failed to prove client’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Kampsula, No. A17-0990, 2018 WL 6273078 (Minn. App. Dec. 3, 2018) (Otter Tail County)

• The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed client’s theft conviction after agreeing that the district court committed reversible error by not requiring the jury to return a unanimous verdict. 

Direct appeals of convictions and sentences before the Minnesota Court of Appeals

If you have been convicted of a crime following a trial or guilty plea, our attorneys can assist you in exercising your right to a direct appeal of your conviction and sentence before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The procedures for filing a direct appeal, including filing deadlines, are articulated within Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 28 along with applicable provisions within the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Direct appeals of first-degree murder convictions before the Minnesota Supreme Court

If you have been convicted of first-degree murder following a trial or guilty plea, our attorneys can assist you in exercising your right to a direct appeal of your conviction and sentence before the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The procedures for filing a direct appeal, including filing deadlines, are articulated within Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 along with applicable provisions within the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitions for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court

If the Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed your conviction and/or sentence, our attorneys can assist you by filing a petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court. The supreme court only grants review of a small number of criminal cases each year.  Those cases often involve important issues of first impression or issues that will have statewide impact.  The procedures for filing a petition for review, including filing deadlines, are articulated within Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.04 along with the applicable provisions within the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Postconviction petitions

If you missed the applicable filing deadlines for filing a direct appeal, or there are issues that you were unable to raise in a direct appeal, our attorneys can assist you in challenging your conviction within a petition for postconviction relief.  The procedures for filing a petition for postconviction relief are articulated within Minnesota Statutes section 590.  While every case is different, issues that are raised in postconviction petitions often involve requests to withdraw a guilty plea, claims of ineffective assistance of trial and/or appellate counsel, and claims that a conviction must be reversed because of newly discovered evidence.  If a direct appeal has not previously been filed, and the postconviction petition can be filed within the statutory deadlines, you can raise similar arguments to those ordinarily raised in a direct appeal.  

Petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States

If you have exhausted your right to appeal your conviction and/or sentence before the Minnesota appellate courts—the Minnesota Supreme Court has denied your petition for review or the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision affirming your conviction and/or sentence—our attorneys can assist with filing a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.  A petition for a writ of certiorari is filed only when the case involves an important issue of Federal Constitutional Law.  The procedures for filing a writ of certiorari can be found within Rules 10 through 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sentencing appeals before the Minnesota Court of Appeals

If you are not pursuing a challenge to your conviction, but you believe the sentence you are serving is illegal, our attorneys can assist with filing a sentencing appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.  The procedures for filing a sentencing appeal are articulated within Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 28.05 along with applicable provisions within the Minnesota Rules of Appellate Procedure.  If the appeal is properly filed as a sentencing appeal, the process will be expeditated to obtain a faster resolution.  The expedited process limits the possibility that you will serve a sentence longer than is legally permissible. 

Sentencing challenges in Minnesota district courts

If you have missed the deadlines for challenging your sentence within a direct appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals, our attorneys can explore avenues to challenge your sentence in district court within a motion to correct your sentence filed under Rule of Criminal Procedure 27.09.