Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Claude Riley Crockson, Jr., 854 N.W.2d 244.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jon Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we carefully review the record “to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict they did.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 244, 248 (Minn. App. 2014), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Regarding the scope of resentencing, Green contends impaneling a resentencing jury would improperly give the state “another bite at the apple.” But she cites only cases involving a different mandatory minimum sentencing provision, a total failure of the state to present the necessary evidence, WL 3886874, at *1-2 (Minn. App. Aug.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, e.g. , rev. denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Lawful possession “does not require an ownership interest in the building but does require more than mere presence in the building.” State v. Crockson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (2018); review denied (Minn. Dec.
A18-1655 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Crockson , (reversing and remanding for resentencing when the district court improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence under Minn. Stat. § 609.11, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that the proper procedure “when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only,” and to leave the remaining count unadjudicated); review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 244 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Where the district cour t errs in formally adjudicating multiple convictions for the same behavioral incident , the proper remedy is to “remand with instructions to the district court to vacate the formal adjudication of guilt” on the lesser- included conviction “and to leave the guilty verdict in place on that unadjudicated 11 conviction.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that the proper procedure “when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only,” and to leave the remaining count unadjudicated); review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, e.g. , Lilienthal, d at 787-88 (co-tenant of property); Spence, d at 109, 108 n.2 (co-owner of property); State v. Crockson , (guest of co-tenant), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Crockson , , 248 (Minn. App. 2014) ("[W]e remand with instructions to the district court to vacate the formal adjudication of guilt ...
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Crockson , review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
10 (describing proper procedure for preserving guilty verdict on non-adjudicated conviction), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(remanding to the district court w ith instructions to vacate erroneous conviction), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court will not overturn a guilty verdict “if the [fact-finder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that when proper procedure is not followed, remedy is to remand case for district court to vacate one of the convictions), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Yahye Elmi Abdisalan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yahye Elmi Abdisalan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This court will not overturn a guilty verdict “if the [fact-finder], acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could have reasonably concluded that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
248 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry 864 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION I. When considering a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, “this court thoroughly examines the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict they did.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damon Lamont Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When considering a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, “this court thoroughly examines the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict they did.” review denied (Minn. Dec.
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Howland Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When considering a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, “this court thoroughly examines the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict they did.”