Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brown, 597 N.W.2d 299.

23 citing documents.

Explained State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
More recently, we have clarified that “s econd-degree assault is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree aggravated robbery” because “it is possible to commit first-degree robbery without also committing second-degree assault.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
Minn. 2020
[in] the taking o r carrying away of the property” distinguishes the use of force necessary to complete the offense of simple robbery from 7 other possible purposes for using force.3 −04 (Minn. App. 1999) (finding sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery where “the jury could reasonably conclude that [the defendant’s] use of force accompanied the carrying away of the [property] and was intended to overcome [the store employee’s] resistance to the carrying away”) (
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
–53 (Minn. 1981); –04 (Minn. App. 6 1999), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Deon Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Deon Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 (2012); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Maurice Williams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In determining whether intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, a court focuses on the factors of time and place and considers whether the segments of conduct were motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Travis Earl Stringer Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minn. Stat. §§ 609.24, 609.245 (2012); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Cody Morrison Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1(4)], a reviewing court looks at the elements of the offense rather than at the facts of the particular case.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Franks 742 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
For example, in Alt , when analyzing which ''conviction” should be the basis for the sentence, we observed that section 609.035 protects a defendant by permitting the district court to impose only ''a single sentence.” d at 731 ; (stating that section 609.035 “limits punishment to a single sentence”), review denied (Minn. Sept.
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of E.S.C. 731 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
revieio denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Skipintheday 704 N.W.2d 177 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lingwall 637 N.W.2d 311 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
review denied (Minn. Sept.
In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
( review denied (Minn. Sept.