State v. Simmons

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Simmons

338 N.W.2d 247, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1295

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedSeptember 16, 1983

DocketNo. C9-82-406

StatusPublished

This text of 338 N.W.2d 247 (State v. Simmons) 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. Simmons, 338 N.W.2d 247, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1295 (Mich. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. § 609.245 (1982), for his role in the robbery of a service station, and was sentenced by the trial court to an executed term of 54 months in prison pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982) and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence identifying him as a participant in the robbery was legally insufficient. There is no merit to this contention. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, consisting of (1) positive identification of defendant as the gunman by the one victim who got a good look at the gunman; (2) positive identification of defendant’s car as a car having been used in casing the station on the day in question; and (3) testimony [248]*248by an admitted accomplice to the crime that defendant was the gunman. We affirm.

Affirmed.

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

PETERSON, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of aggravated robbery, Minn. Stat. § 609.245 (1982), for his role in the robbery of a service station, and was sentenced by the trial court to an executed term of 54 months in prison pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982) and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the evidence identifying him as a participant in the robbery was legally insufficient. There is no merit to this contention. The evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, consisting of (1) positive identification of defendant as the gunman by the one victim who got a good look at the gunman; (2) positive identification of defendant’s car as a car having been used in casing the station on the day in question; and (3) testimony [248]*248by an admitted accomplice to the crime that defendant was the gunman. We affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 N.W.2d 247, 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simmons-minn-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack