Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Edwards

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

August 14, 2017

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Tommy James Edwards, Appellant.

         St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CR-15-1361

          Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent).

          Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Anders J. Erickson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant).

          Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and Bratvold, Judge.

         SYLLABUS

         When determining whether a juvenile's conviction following certification for adult prosecution in another state should properly be included in an offender's Minnesota criminal history score, a district court does not violate an offender's constitutional right to a sentencing jury trial when it compares the Minnesota statute with that of the certifying state to decide whether the juvenile would have been certified as an adult under Minnesota law.

          OPINION

          RODENBERG, Judge.

         Appellant Tommy James Edwards appeals his conviction of second-degree assault, arguing that the district court gave erroneous jury instructions. He also argues that his right to a jury trial was violated when the district court included two Wisconsin convictions in calculating his criminal history score without submitting to a jury the question of whether those Wisconsin offenses would have been certified for adult prosecution under Minnesota law. We affirm.

         FACTS

         Appellant was charged with second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon under Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1 (2014), after he stabbed L.R.D. with a knife during a fight outside a nightclub.[1] While the state did not produce the knife at trial, it introduced testimony to support its theory. L.R.D. described the knife used by appellant, the state provided photos of L.R.D.'s wounds, and a police investigator testified that the wounds were consistent with a stabbing.

         Appellant's theory at trial was that he used no knife to attack L.R.D., and that he used only his fists during the fight. A witness for appellant testified that he did not see either combatant use a knife during the fight. In summation, appellant's attorney stated the "key question is whether or not [appellant] had a knife" during the fight.

         There were no objections to the district court's jury instructions. The jury convicted appellant of second-degree assault.

         Appellant did not request a jury trial concerning his criminal history score. But before sentencing, appellant moved the district court to exclude two of his prior Wisconsin felony convictions from his criminal history score. The convictions were for two separate attempted robberies, both involving appellant's use of a handgun to threaten the imminent use of force. Appellant argues to the district court that it could not include those convictions in his criminal history score because he was a minor when he was convicted and, although Wisconsin tried him as an adult, the district court had not made sufficient findings that appellant would have been tried as an adult in Minnesota. The district court included the Wisconsin felony points in appellant's criminal history score, concluding that appellant would have been certified for adult prosecution in Minnesota had the offenses been committed here.

         This appeal followed.

         ISSUES

         I. Did the district court plainly err by not instructing the jury on the statutory definitions of "bodily harm" and "great bodily harm, " or by defining "assault" as either intentionally inflicting bodily ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.