Legal Opinion

State v. Hannam

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 19, 1999No. C1-99-120PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

The district court enhanced appellant’s sentence after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant possessed a firearm at the time he committed burglary. Appellant argues that a preponderance of the evidence is not the appropriate standard and that the enhancement statute does not apply. Because we see no error in the district court’s enhancement of the sentence, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Bret Duane Hannam was charged with first-degree burglary (occupied dwelling) and first-degree burglary (possessing or using a dangerous weapon). At trial, the victim…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  3. State v. MontjoySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
  4. State v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  5. State v. ChristieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. HobbsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
  2. Salcido-Perez v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
  3. State v. HannamCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API