Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Essex, 838 N.W.2d 805.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
15 aggravating factors used to enhance [the defendant’s] sentence had those factors been submitted to a jury in compliance with Blakely.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Dettman, d at 655), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Thomas Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Thomas Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
22, 2000); -08 (Minn. App. 2013) (attempted second-degree assault at a bar), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“A Blakely error is 8 harmless if the reviewing court can say with certainty that a jury would have found the aggravating factors used to enhance the defendant’s sentence had those factors been submitted to a jury in compliance with Blakely.” 3 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“A Blakely error is harmless if the reviewing court can say with certainty that a jury would have found the aggravating factors used to enhance [the defendant’s] sentence had those factors been submitted to a jury in compliance with Blakely.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2021
See id.; rev. denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Essex , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Essex , (“Because intent is a state of mind, it is ge nerally 1 Mishra does not raise this argument on appeal, but we note that the district c ourt may have erred by imposing two sentences for offenses arising from a single behavioral incident.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Jan.
A17-0357 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
10 (2016); review denied (Minn. Jan.
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Hoshiar A. Sadiq Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review 4 denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Deangelo Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jeremia Joseph Loper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jeremia Joseph Loper Minn. Ct. App. 2016
2 DECISION Appellant argues there was not sufficient evidence to determine that he touched Z.C.S.’s breast with sexual or aggressive intent.1 “Because intent is a state of mind, it is generally proved circumstantially by drawing inferences from the defendant’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances.” review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brian Matthew Husnick Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Jan.