State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1627

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Ramon Rosevelt Blakey,
Appellant.

Filed August 17, 2020
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Carver County District Court
File No. 10-CR-18-1091

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Mark Metz, Carver County Attorney, Peter Ivy, Assistant County Attorney, Chaska,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jenna Yauch-Erickson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
In this direct appeal from final judgment, appellant Ramon Rosevelt Blakey argues
that his burglary conviction must be reversed because respondent State of Minnesota failed
to prove that he was one of the two individuals who committed the burglary. Because the

2
circumstantial evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Blakey was one of the two
individuals who committed the burglary, we affirm.
FACTS
The state charged Blakey with aiding and abetting theft, in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 609.52, subd. 2(a)(1) (2018), and second -degree burglary while possessing burglary
tools, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2(a)(4) (2018), following a break-in at a
T-Mobile store . The case was presented to a jury which found Blakey guilty o f each
charged count. The district court entered a conviction on the burglary count only and
sentenced Blakey to 39 months in prison. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Blakey argues on appeal that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient for the
jury to find him guilty because the circumstances proved allow for a reasonable alternative
hypothesis that he was not one of the individuals who broke into the T -Mobile store.
Though we agree that the jury found Blakey guilty based upon circumstantial evidence, we
disagree with Blakey’s argument as to the presence of a reasonable alternative hypothesis
other than his guilt.
“A conviction based on circumstantial evidence warrants particular scrutiny.” State
v. Bolstad, 686 N.W.2d 531, 539 (Minn. 2004). Ap pellate courts must apply a two -step
analysis when reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. See State v. Silvernail,
831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, the reviewing court must identify the
circumstances proved and “construe conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict.” See id. at 599 (quotation omitted). In doing so, the reviewing court must defer

3
“to the jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in
the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” See State v.
Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). Second, the reviewing
court must “determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and
inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt, not simply whether the
inferences that point to guilt are reasonable.” See State v. Palmer , 803 N.W.2d 727, 733
(Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). The state’s evidence does not need to exclude all
inferences other than guilt, but it must “exclude all reasonable inferences other than guilt.”
State v. Tscheu, 758 N.W.2d 849, 857 (Minn. 2008). The circumstances proved must “form
a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole, leads so directly to the guilt of
the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any reasonable inference other than
guilt.” State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn. 2010).
Circumstances Proved
The following circumstances were proved at trial, and are consistent with the jury’s
finding of Blakey’s guilt:
 Two individuals broke into the T -Mobile store in Waconia at night on
October 21, 2018. The individuals entered the store using tools to cut a hole
through the wall of a neighboring retail unit.

 The two individuals removed approximately 30 cell phones and, using tools,
a safe containing cash from the storage room.

 The two individuals fled the store with t he items in a green Ford Windstar
van. A tracking device on one of the stolen phones sent a signal to law
enforcement indicating the phone’s GPS location , and law enforcement
began a pursuit of the vehicle . Law enforcement officers ended the pursuit
out of safety concerns as the vehicle got close to Minneapolis . The officers
located the van parked in a Minneapolis parking lot and observed a safe and

4
cell phones in plain view through the van’s window. The safe was partially
covered by a green, white, and orange athletic jacket.

 Officers searched the van and found receipts from Home Depot and
Walgreen’s dated October 20, 2018, and October 19, 2018, respectively. The
Home Depot receipt showed that several tools were purchased, including a
power hacksaw, a red six -inch steel blade , bolt cutters, a 20 -gallon tote,
gloves, and a 5/16-inch drill bit.

 Surveillance video from the Home Depot store at the time and date listed on
the receipt shows two men, one of whom resembles Blakey who is wearing
athletic pants matching the jacket found in the van after the burglary, and
wearing white shoes similar to a pair of Air Jordan shoes found in the van
after the burglary. The man is seen carrying a bolt cutter in the tools
department.

 Surveillance video from the Walgreen’s store at the time and date listed on
the receipt shows a man who resembles Blakey at the checkout counter
wearing an athletic jacket matching the jacket found in the van after the
burglary.

 Red paint was found on the safe and wall at places that were cut with a power
tool.

 Officers found a cell phone under the front seat of the van connected to
Blakey’s email address and with Blakey’s fingerprints on it , a cup with a
straw that contained Blakey’s DNA, and a pair of white Air Jordan shoes that
matched footprints found in the T-Mobile store and on the safe found in the
van.

 Officers found a glove in the van that also matched the description on the
Home Depot receipt.

 Blakey’s phone was used to call the Iron Tap bar in Waconia within two
hours of the burglary. This bar is visible from the T -Mobile store but is not
located in the same building.

 A black-and-white surveillance video from a bar located in the same building
as the T-Mobile store shows a man resembling Blakey briefly enter the bar a
few days before the burglary at the T -Mobile store and look around . The
man appears to be wearing shoes and a jacket similar to those found in the
van after the burglary.

5

No Reasonable Alternative Hypothesis
Blakey acknowledges that the circumstances proved establish that two individuals
forced entry into the T-Mobile store and that law enforcement found his personal property
and DNA inside the van. He asserts, however, that the circumstances proved allow for a
reasonable alternative hypothesis that he was not involved in the break-in because the
evidence only places him in the van at some point and does not show that he was in the
T-Mobile store.
For the jury to find Blakey guilty of second -degree burglary wh ile possessing
burglary tools, the state needed to prove that Blakey “enter[ed] a building without consent
and with intent to commit a crime, or enter[ed] a building without consent and commit[ted]
a crime while in the building, either directly or as an accomplice ” and “when entering or
while in the building, the burglar possesse[d] a tool to gain access to money or property .”
Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 2(a)(4).1
We reject Blakey’s argument of a reasonable hypothesis other than his guilt .
Appellate courts “will not overturn a conviction based on circumstantial evidence on the
basis of mere conjecture.” State v. German, 929 N.W.2d 466, 472 (Minn. App. 2019). We
conclude that Blakey’s alternat ive hypothesis that another person, not him, entered the

1 Blakey was also found guilty of aiding and abetting theft, though the district court did not
enter judgment of conviction for this crime. Because w e recognize that , consistent with
State v. Ashland , 287 N.W.2d 649, 650 (Minn. 1979) , we typically need address the
sufficiency of evidence only as to the offense for which a conviction and sentence is
imposed, we choose to not address sufficiency of evidence for this offense.

6
T-Mobile store is unreasonable. The evidence indicating Blakey’s preparation for the
burglary, the match between the purchases Blakey made before the burglary and the items
found in the vehicle afte r the burglary, and the physical evidence tying Blakey to the
burglary and the vehicle, indicate that Blakey’s alternative hypothesis is unreasonable. The
circumstances proved “form a complete chain that, in view of the evidence as a whole,
leads so directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any
reasonable inference other than guilt.” Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d at 473.
Affirmed.