§ 609.585

State v. Holmes · 2010 17 citations

Appellant Nosakhere Holmes was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree burglary with assault and aiding and abetting third-degree assault and was sentenced for both offenses. Holmes challenged the conviction and sentence for third-degree assault, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2008), incorporates assault into this first-degree burglary offense, and therefore the assault is not “any other crime” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2008). The court of appeals affirmed, and we granted review. Because we conclude that Minn. Stat. § 609.585 permits a defendant to be convicted of and sentenced for both offenses in these circumstances, we affirm.

Appellant Nosakhere Holmes was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree burglary with assault and aiding and abetting third-degree assault and was sentenced for both offenses. Holmes challenged the conviction and sentence for third-degree assault, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2008), incorporates assault into this first-degree burglary offense, and therefore the assault is not “any other crime” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2008). The court of appeals affirmed, and we granted review. Because we conclude that Minn. Stat. § 609.585 permits a defendant to be convicted of and sentenced for both offenses in these circumstances, we affirm.

Appellant Nosakhere Holmes was convicted of aiding and abetting first-degree burglary with assault and aiding and abetting third-degree assault and was sentenced for both offenses. Holmes challenged the conviction and sentence for third-degree assault, arguing that Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 1(c) (2008), incorporates assault into this first-degree burglary offense, and therefore the assault is not “any other crime” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2008). The court of appeals affirmed, and we granted review. Because we conclude that Minn. Stat. § 609.585 permits a defendant to be convicted of and sentenced for both offenses in these circumstances, we affirm.

+ 14 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Williams · 2000 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Mullen · 1998 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Spaeth · 1996 1 citation

Under Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (1994), a conviction of the crime of burglary is "not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed on entering or while in the building entered.”

State v. Hartfield · 1990 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Gartland · 1983 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. McAdoo · 1983 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Van Gorden · 1982 1 citation

The kidnapping and sex offenses were both part of the same behavioral incident and therefore, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (1980), the trial court could sentence defendant for only one of the two. The one picked was the sex conviction because, although it is an offense with a shorter maximum prison term than the kidnapping offense, it is classified as a more serious offense by the Sentencing Guidelines. The burglary was also part of the same behavioral incident, but Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (1980) operates to except burglary from the operation of Minn. Stat. § 609.-035 (1980). Therefore, the trial court could sentence defendant for the sex offense and the burglary.

State v. Boley · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Anderson · 1980 1 citation

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of charges of burglary, theft over $100, and knowingly receiving or concealing stolen property. At the sentencing hearing the trial court dismissed the count charging receiving or concealing stolen property on motion of the state, and, although under Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (1978) he could have sentenced defendant to two prison terms, sentenced him only for the burglary to five years in prson. On this appeal from judgment of conviction defendant contends that the trial court erroneously denied a motion to suppress what defendant contends was a coerced confession and prejudicially erred in admitting hearsay testimony implicating defendant in the crimes charged. We affirm.

State v. Scott · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Van Meveren · 1980 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Alexander · 1980 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Phillip Charles Jones · 2024 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Carl Raba · 2016 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Theodore Pierre Jerry · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Rivers · 2010 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Grampre · 2009 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Williams · 2008 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hoelzel · 2000 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hicks · 1988 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hatton · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Travica · 1987 1 citation

It is true that one cannot commit either burglary with a tool or attempted burglary with a tool without committing the offense of possession of burglary tools, as those offenses are statutorily defined. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.17, subd. 1, 609.582, subd. 2(d) and 609.59 (1986). However, Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (1986), provides:

State v. Hatton · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Walker v. State · 1986 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Hodges · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Eberhardt · 1986 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.