State v. Carr

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Carr

263 N.W.2d 816, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1414

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 3, 1978

DocketNo. 47266

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 N.W.2d 816 (State v. Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Carr, 263 N.W.2d 816, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1414 (Mich. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of charges of aggravated robbery, Minn.St. 609.245, and theft of property valued at more than $2,500, Minn.St. 609.52, and was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent prison terms of 3 to 20 years for the robbery and 0 to 5 years for the theft. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the identification issue and also contends that the trial court violated Minn.St. 609.035, the so-called single-behavioral-incident statute, in sentencing him for both offenses. There is no merit to the first contention but there is merit to the second one. In fact, the state concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant for both offenses since they arose from the same incident and, accordingly, requests that the sentences be vacated and the case remanded for resen-tencing.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resen-tencing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of charges of aggravated robbery, Minn.St. 609.245, and theft of property valued at more than $2,500, Minn.St. 609.52, and was sentenced by the trial court to concurrent prison terms of 3 to 20 years for the robbery and 0 to 5 years for the theft. On this appeal from judgment of conviction, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the identification issue and also contends that the trial court violated Minn.St. 609.035, the so-called single-behavioral-incident statute, in sentencing him for both offenses. There is no merit to the first contention but there is merit to the second one. In fact, the state concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant for both offenses since they arose from the same incident and, accordingly, requests that the sentences be vacated and the case remanded for resen-tencing.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resen-tencing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 N.W.2d 816, 1978 Minn. LEXIS 1414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carr-minn-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack