State v. Hannam
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
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
- McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Hibbing Education Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- State v. MontjoySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- State v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
- State v. ChristieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. HobbsCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006
- Salcido-Perez v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. HannamCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2011