Fighting a Simple Robbery Accusation in Duluth with a Dedicated Defense Attorney
The moment you are accused of Simple Robbery in a community like Duluth, your life is irrevocably altered. One phone call, one knock on the door, and suddenly, the very foundation of your existence feels like it’s crumbling. The initial shock is profound, quickly giving way to a paralyzing fear. You envision the headlines, the whispers in tight-knit towns like Proctor or Two Harbors, and the devastating impact on your reputation – a reputation you’ve likely spent years building. This isn’t just about a legal process; it’s about your freedom, your future, and the very perception of who you are. The state is asserting its immense power, and it feels as though everything you hold dear is suddenly on the line, threatening to rip apart the fabric of your life.
The fear is palpable, and for good reason, because the stakes in a Simple Robbery accusation are undeniably high. You worry about losing your job, your ability to provide for your family, and the way this accusation will forever change how people in St. Louis County or Bemidji view you. In a community where trust is valued, such an allegation can be a social death sentence, isolating you from friends, family, and your livelihood. This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a fight for your very existence, your good name, and your peace of mind. You need more than just a lawyer; you need a relentless advocate who understands the profound crisis you’re in and is prepared to stand between you and the full, overwhelming force of the state, ensuring your voice is heard and your rights are fiercely protected.
The Stakes: What a Conviction Truly Costs
A conviction for Simple Robbery is not merely a legal hurdle; it’s a profound blow that can shatter your life, extending far beyond any immediate penalties. This isn’t just about a courtroom fight; it’s a battle for your entire future.
Your Permanent Criminal Record
A conviction for Simple Robbery will create a permanent criminal record that follows you for the rest of your life. This isn’t something that can be expunged or easily explained away; it’s an indelible mark accessible to potential employers, landlords, educational institutions, and even those conducting simple background checks for volunteer work. Years down the line, this record will resurface, erecting formidable barriers where none existed before. It can impact your ability to secure loans, obtain professional licenses, or even travel internationally. This record becomes a constant reminder of the state’s judgment, often overshadowing your character and accomplishments, making it incredibly difficult to rebuild your life and reputation in communities like Duluth or Cloquet.
Loss of Second Amendment Rights
For many individuals in Northern Minnesota, the right to bear arms is not just a constitutional principle; it’s an integral part of their lifestyle, whether for hunting, sport, or self-defense. A felony conviction for Simple Robbery will permanently strip you of your Second Amendment rights. This means losing your ability to legally own or possess firearms, a deeply personal and significant loss for many. This isn’t just about a hobby; it’s about a fundamental right that, once forfeited due to a felony conviction, is nearly impossible to regain. The implications extend to every facet of your life, from recreational activities in the vast wilderness of St. Louis County to your sense of personal security and your participation in traditions passed down through generations.
Barriers to Employment and Housing
In today’s competitive landscape, a felony conviction for Simple Robbery is a massive hurdle to securing stable employment and suitable housing. Employers are increasingly conducting thorough background checks, and a conviction for a violent or theft-related felony immediately raises red flags. Many companies, particularly those involving trust, finances, or direct interaction with the public, will outright reject applicants with such a record. Similarly, landlords routinely run background checks, and a felony conviction can lead to denied housing applications, forcing you into less desirable or unstable living situations in communities like Proctor or Two Harbors. This can create a devastating cycle of instability, making it incredibly difficult to re-establish yourself and build a secure future.
Impact on Professional Licenses and Reputation
If you hold a professional license – whether in healthcare, finance, education, or any other regulated industry – a felony conviction for Simple Robbery can be catastrophic for your career. Licensing boards often view felonies, especially those involving dishonesty, violence, or theft, with extreme prejudice, leading to the immediate suspension, revocation, or denial of your license. Even if your license isn’t instantly revoked, the damage to your professional reputation can be irreparable. Clients may lose trust, colleagues may distance themselves, and your ability to practice your profession effectively will be severely hampered. Your name, once a symbol of integrity and trustworthiness in your community, could become irrevocably linked to the crime, leading to lasting personal and professional isolation in Bemidji or any other town where you seek to rebuild.
The Accusation: Understanding the State’s Case
When the state levels an accusation of Simple Robbery against you, it’s critical to understand the precise legal claims they are making. This isn’t about their interpretation; it’s about the specific definitions and elements they must prove to secure a conviction.
What Does the State Allege? Simple Robbery Explained in Plain English
When the state accuses you of Simple Robbery, they are alleging that you took personal property directly from another person, or in their presence, without having any legal right to it. Crucially, they must also claim that you used or threatened to immediately use force against someone. This force, or the threat of it, must have been intended to overcome that person’s resistance or their ability to resist, or to compel them to go along with you taking the property. It’s not just theft; it’s theft combined with an element of direct coercion or violence against a person to achieve the taking of the property.
This means that even if the force was minimal, or the threat was implied rather than explicit, if it was used to ensure the taking or carrying away of the property against the victim’s will, it can constitute Simple Robbery. The focus is on the direct interaction between you, the alleged victim, and the use of force or threat of force as a means to commit the theft. This elevates the crime from a mere property offense to one that involves a direct threat to another person’s safety and autonomy in a setting like Duluth or St. Louis County.
The Law on the Books: Minnesota Statute 609.24
Minnesota Statute 609.24 defines Simple Robbery, outlining the specific actions and intent that constitute this serious felony. The purpose of this statute is to deter and punish theft that involves direct force or the threat of force against another person, recognizing the heightened danger and violation of personal safety inherent in such acts.
609.24 SIMPLE ROBBERY.
Whoever, having knowledge of not being entitled thereto, takes personal property from the person or in the presence of another and uses or threatens the imminent use of force against any person to overcome the person’s resistance or powers of resistance to, or to compel acquiescence in, the taking or carrying away of the property is guilty of robbery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both.
The Prosecution’s Burden: Elements of Simple Robbery
In any criminal case, the state carries the burden of proving every single element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to prove even one of these elements, their entire case collapses, and you cannot be convicted. This fundamental principle of justice is the cornerstone of a strong defense. The prosecution cannot rely on assumptions or implications; they must present concrete, compelling evidence for each point. Understanding these elements is critical, as it allows your defense to pinpoint weaknesses in the state’s case and build a formidable strategy around them.
- Knowledge of Not Being Entitled: The prosecution must prove that you, at the time of the alleged taking, knew you were not entitled to the personal property. This element addresses your mental state and intent; it’s not enough that you took the property; you must have known that you had no legal right or claim to it. This distinguishes robbery from situations where property might be taken under a genuine (even if mistaken) belief of ownership or right.
- Taking of Personal Property: The state must demonstrate that you took personal property. This refers to any tangible item that can be moved and has value, such as money, a wallet, a phone, or jewelry. The property must be something that belongs to another individual or entity, and your actions must involve physically acquiring it from them.
- From the Person or In the Presence of Another: The prosecution must prove that the personal property was taken directly from the person of another individual (e.g., from their pocket, hand, or bag), or in their presence. “In their presence” means the victim was sufficiently close to the property to be aware of the taking and to potentially react to it. This element highlights the direct confrontation aspect of robbery.
- Use or Threat of Imminent Force: The state must prove that you used or threatened the imminent use of force against any person. This is the defining characteristic that elevates robbery from mere theft. The force does not have to result in injury, and the threat does not have to be verbal; a menacing gesture or implied threat can suffice if it instills fear and influences the victim’s actions.
- Purpose of Force: The prosecution must demonstrate that the force or threat of force was used to overcome the person’s resistance or powers of resistance, or to compel acquiescence in the taking or carrying away of the property. This element links the force directly to the theft. The force or threat must be a means to an end – specifically, to ensure you can take the property despite the victim’s opposition or potential opposition. Without this direct purpose, the element is not met.
The Potential Outcome: Penalties for a Simple Robbery Conviction
A conviction for Simple Robbery in Minnesota is a felony, a severe criminal offense that carries substantial penalties. The courts in Duluth and St. Louis County view these charges with extreme gravity due to the inherent violence or threat of violence involved. A conviction will have profound and lasting consequences, impacting every aspect of your life.
If convicted of Simple Robbery under Minnesota Statute 609.24, you face the following statutory penalties:
- Imprisonment: You may be sentenced to not more than ten years in state prison. This is a significant potential prison sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the crime. The actual sentence will depend on various factors, including your criminal history, the specific circumstances of the offense, and sentencing guidelines.
- Fines: You may be ordered to pay a fine of not more than $20,000. This financial penalty can be imposed in addition to any prison sentence or other conditions.
- Both Imprisonment and Fine: The court has the discretion to impose both a period of imprisonment and a substantial fine.
- Probation: Even if you avoid immediate prison time, you will almost certainly be placed on a lengthy period of probation, during which you will be required to adhere to strict conditions set by the court. Violating probation can lead to serving out any suspended prison sentence.
- Restitution: You will likely be ordered to pay restitution to the victim for any financial losses or damages incurred as a result of the robbery. This can include the value of the stolen property, medical expenses, or other related costs.
- Other Conditions: The court may impose additional conditions, such as mandatory participation in anger management or theft-related counseling, community service, or a prohibition on contact with the alleged victim.
- Permanent Felony Record: A felony conviction for robbery will result in a permanent criminal record, leading to the loss of civil liberties, including the right to vote while incarcerated, the right to serve on a jury, and the permanent loss of your Second Amendment rights. It will also significantly impact future employment, housing, and educational opportunities in communities across Northern Minnesota.
The Battle Plan: Building Your Strategic Defense
An accusation is not a conviction. It is the state’s opening move in a fight, and despite their considerable resources, they are not invincible. You are not a passive bystander in this process; you are a combatant, and a strategic, aggressive defense is your most formidable weapon.
An Accusation is Not a Conviction: The Fight Starts Now
When you’re accused of Simple Robbery, the ground beneath your feet feels like it’s given way. The weight of the accusation is immense, and it’s natural to feel overwhelmed, perhaps even hopeless. But I want you to understand one thing very clearly: an accusation is not a conviction. It is merely the beginning of a legal battle, and with the right advocate by your side, it’s a battle you absolutely can win. The state has made its claims, but those claims are just that – claims. They are not facts until they are proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. And proving a complex charge like Simple Robbery, which hinges on specific intent and the precise use or threat of force, is often a far more challenging task for the prosecution than simply making an accusation.
My approach to your defense is not reactive; it is a proactive, strategic counter-offensive. I will not sit back and let the state dictate the terms of this fight. We will immediately begin scrutinizing every piece of evidence they claim to possess, looking for weaknesses, inconsistencies, and opportunities to dismantle their narrative. This means challenging the identification of the perpetrator, questioning the alleged use or threat of force, dissecting witness statements for bias or inaccuracy, and thoroughly investigating the circumstances surrounding the alleged taking of property. The state’s case must be rigorously tested and challenged at every turn, because that is how we expose the holes in their arguments and force them to prove what they often cannot. Your defense begins the moment you decide to fight, and I am here to lead that charge in Duluth, St. Louis County, and across Northern Minnesota.
How a Simple Robbery Charge Can Be Challenged in Court
Every accusation, no matter how daunting, can be challenged. A charge of Simple Robbery is no different. My defense strategy involves exploring every possible legal avenue to undermine the prosecution’s case and protect your rights.
Lack of Intent or Knowledge
- No Knowledge of Not Being Entitled: A critical element for the state is proving you knew you were not entitled to the property. If I can demonstrate that you genuinely believed you had a right to the property (e.g., retrieving your own property, a debt owed, or a good faith misunderstanding of ownership), then the specific intent required for robbery is absent. This defense would focus on your state of mind at the moment of the alleged taking, demonstrating a lack of the necessary criminal intent.
- Mistake of Fact: Similar to the above, if there was a genuine mistake of fact regarding the ownership of the property or the circumstances surrounding its taking, it can negate the necessary criminal intent. This isn’t an excuse, but rather a legal argument that the required mental state for robbery was not present.
Absence of Force or Threat of Force
- No Use of Force: The defining characteristic of robbery is the use or threat of force. If the prosecution cannot prove that any force was actually used against the victim, or that any physical contact was accidental, incidental, or not intended to overcome resistance, then the charge may fail. This could involve arguing that the incident was merely a theft (a less serious crime) rather than a robbery.
- No Imminent Threat of Force: Similarly, if the alleged “threat” was not imminent, was not perceived as a genuine threat by a reasonable person, or was not linked directly to the taking of the property, then this element can be challenged. Perhaps the words were misinterpreted, or the gesture was not menacing, or the threat was made after the property was already taken, transforming it into a different offense.
Improper Identification
- Mistaken Identity: Eyewitness identification can be notoriously unreliable, especially in high-stress situations. I will rigorously scrutinize the identification process, looking for suggestive procedures by law enforcement, poor lighting, obstructed views, or discrepancies in witness descriptions. If the identification is weak or flawed, it can create reasonable doubt as to whether you were truly the perpetrator.
- Alibi Defense: If you can establish that you were demonstrably in another location at the time of the alleged robbery, it creates an alibi defense. This requires presenting verifiable evidence, such as receipts, travel records, witness testimony, or electronic data, to prove you could not have committed the crime. A strong alibi can completely dismantle the prosecution’s case.
Lack of Nexus Between Force and Taking
- Force After Taking: For the act to be robbery, the force or threat of force must be used to overcome resistance or compel acquiescence in the taking or carrying away. If the force was applied after the property was already taken and secured, or if it was used for a different purpose (e.g., to escape after a simple theft), then the essential link between the force and the taking for robbery may be broken. This could reduce the charge to theft and assault, which are still serious but less severe than robbery.
- Accidental Force: If any physical contact or perceived force was accidental and not intended to facilitate the taking of the property, then it does not meet the element of intentional use of force for robbery. This defense argues that while an incident may have occurred, the specific criminal intent required for robbery was absent.
Defense in Action: Scenarios in Northern Minnesota
Legal theories become powerful when applied to real-world situations. Here’s how a strategic defense could unfold in localized scenarios across Northern Minnesota.
Bemidji: The Misunderstood Confrontation
In Bemidji, a student, Alex, is accused of Simple Robbery. Alex allegedly took a classmate’s textbook, and when confronted, there was a brief struggle over the book. The classmate claims Alex “shoved” them to get away with the book, constituting the use of force. Alex maintains they were simply trying to pull their own textbook back from the classmate, believing it was mistakenly picked up, and any physical contact was accidental during the struggle for possession, not an intentional “shove” to facilitate theft.
Here, the defense would focus on No Knowledge of Not Being Entitled and Absence of Force or Threat of Force. I would argue that Alex genuinely believed the book was theirs, negating the necessary intent to steal. Furthermore, any physical contact was not a deliberate “use of force” to overcome resistance for theft, but rather an incidental consequence of two individuals grappling over an item, transforming it into a dispute over property rather than a robbery. We would present witness testimony if available, or analyze surveillance footage, to show the accidental nature of the contact.
Cloquet: The Altercation After a Theft
Imagine a situation in Cloquet where an individual, Ben, is accused of Simple Robbery. Ben allegedly shoplifted an item from a store. As he was leaving the store, an employee attempted to stop him. A brief altercation ensued, and Ben pushed past the employee to escape, and the employee subsequently called the police, alleging robbery.
In this scenario, the primary defense would be Force After Taking (Lack of Nexus Between Force and Taking). I would argue that the theft (shoplifting) was completed before the force was used. Ben’s use of force was to facilitate his escape after the property was already taken, not to overcome resistance to the taking or carrying away of the property. While his actions might constitute theft and assault, they do not meet the specific elements of robbery because the force was not integrally linked to the initial taking of the property, and this distinction can significantly reduce the severity of the charges he faces in St. Louis County.
Two Harbors: The Unidentified Perpetrator
A tourist in Two Harbors reports being robbed of their wallet on a dimly lit street. They provide a general description of the assailant. Later, an individual, Chris, who loosely matches the description, is apprehended by police in the area. The tourist, under suggestive circumstances, identifies Chris. Chris has a strong alibi for the time of the robbery.
Here, the defense would center on Improper Identification and Alibi Defense. I would vigorously challenge the eyewitness identification, pointing out the poor lighting, the stress of the situation for the victim, and any suggestive tactics used by law enforcement during the identification procedure. Simultaneously, I would present compelling alibi evidence – such as verifiable receipts, timestamped photos, or witness testimony from a credible source – proving that Chris was demonstrably elsewhere at the exact time the robbery occurred. The combination of flawed identification and a solid alibi can create overwhelming reasonable doubt.
Proctor: The Misinterpreted Gesture
Consider a case in Proctor where a person, Dana, is accused of Simple Robbery after taking cash from an open register during a chaotic moment at a small shop. The cashier later claims Dana “threatened” them by reaching quickly towards their pocket before grabbing the money, interpreting it as an imminent threat of violence to compel acquiescence. Dana maintains they were merely reaching for their own phone in their pocket and then saw an opportunity to quickly grab the money, with no intent to threaten.
The defense here would emphasize No Imminent Threat of Force and Lack of Knowledge of Not Being Entitled linked to that threat. I would argue that Dana’s gesture was misinterpreted and was not intended to be a threat to overcome resistance. There was no explicit or implicit verbal threat, and the physical action was ambiguous. The taking of the money was opportunistic theft, not robbery fueled by a prior threat of force. We would present evidence of Dana’s behavior, possibly surveillance footage if available, to show that the gesture was incidental and not a direct, threatening action designed to facilitate the theft against the cashier’s will.
The Advocate: Why a Dedicated Duluth Defense Attorney is Essential
When your freedom, your reputation, and your entire future are on the line, you don’t need a passive observer. You need a fighter, a strategist, and an unwavering advocate who understands the brutal realities of the courtroom and the profound impact a criminal charge has on your life.
Countering the Resources of the State
When you face a charge of Simple Robbery, you are not just up against a single prosecutor; you are confronting the full, overwhelming force of the state of Minnesota. This means highly trained prosecutors with almost limitless resources, including investigators, forensic teams, and legal teams, all dedicated to securing a conviction against you. They have access to state databases, the power of subpoenas, and the ability to dedicate significant time and taxpayer dollars to build their case. Trying to navigate this labyrinthine system alone is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. You need someone who understands their tactics, can anticipate their moves, and possesses the legal acumen to counter their every maneuver. My role is to level that playing field in Duluth, St. Louis County, and beyond, ensuring that you are not overwhelmed by the sheer power and resources of the state. I will meticulously examine their evidence, challenge their assumptions, and exploit any procedural missteps they make, transforming their apparent strength into vulnerabilities.
Strategic Command of the St. Louis County Courts
Every courthouse, every judge, and every prosecutor’s office has its own unique nuances. The legal landscape in St. Louis County, encompassing communities like Duluth, Two Harbors, and Proctor, is no exception. Successfully navigating a charge of Simple Robbery here requires more than just a general understanding of the law; it demands an intimate familiarity with the local rules, the prevailing judicial philosophies, and the typical approaches of the prosecuting attorneys who operate within this specific jurisdiction. I am consistently in these courtrooms, observing, learning, and building relationships that, while never compromising my ethical obligations, provide invaluable insights into the likely trajectory of your case. This local knowledge allows me to craft a defense strategy that is not just legally sound, but also practically effective within the specific context of the St. Louis County judicial system, anticipating challenges and proactively addressing them before they become roadblocks to your freedom.
Fighting for Your Story, Not Just the Police Report
The state’s case is built on a narrative, often constructed solely from police reports, witness statements, and their own interpretation of events. This narrative rarely tells the whole story, and it almost certainly doesn’t tell your story. A police report is a snapshot, not a comprehensive picture, and it’s invariably biased towards the prosecution’s viewpoint. When you’re facing a charge like Simple Robbery, the prosecution will paint a picture of you as a dangerous criminal. My unwavering commitment is to ensure that your side of the story is heard – with all its complexities, nuances, and mitigating factors. I will investigate beyond the superficial reports, seek out overlooked evidence, interview witnesses who may have been ignored, and work tirelessly to present a compelling, human narrative that challenges the state’s one-dimensional portrayal. Your defense is not just about dissecting legal arguments; it’s about making sure the court understands the full truth, not just a distorted version presented by the state or a biased witness in Bemidji or Cloquet.
An Unwavering Commitment to a Winning Result
From the moment you walk through my door in Duluth, my focus shifts entirely to one objective: achieving the best possible outcome for you in your Simple Robbery case. This isn’t just a job; it’s a personal commitment. I understand that your freedom, your future, and your reputation are all on the line, and I approach every case with the tenacity and dedication required to secure a favorable result. Whether that means aggressively negotiating with the prosecution to have charges dismissed or reduced, meticulously preparing for a trial to secure an acquittal, or meticulously exploring diversion programs and alternative sentencing options, every action I take is calibrated to advance your interests. There is no compromise when it comes to your defense; I will relentlessly pursue every available avenue, leaving no stone unturned, because anything less is a disservice to the trust you place in me. My goal is always to deliver a winning result, whatever that means for your specific circumstances in Northern Minnesota.
Your Questions Answered
What is the difference between Simple Robbery and Theft?
The key difference between Simple Robbery and Theft is the element of force or threat of imminent force. Theft involves taking property without permission. Simple Robbery escalates theft to a felony because it includes the use or threat of immediate force against a person to overcome their resistance or compel them to allow the taking of the property.
Is Simple Robbery considered a violent crime in Minnesota?
Yes, Simple Robbery is considered a violent crime in Minnesota because it involves the use or threat of force against another person, making it a felony. Even if no physical injury occurs, the threat to personal safety is what makes it a violent offense under the law.
What if I didn’t intend to harm anyone, just to take the property?
The statute for Simple Robbery focuses on the use or threat of force to overcome resistance or compel acquiescence in the taking, not necessarily the intent to harm the person. Even if your sole intent was to take the property, if you used force or a threat to achieve that, it can still be considered robbery.
Can I be charged with Simple Robbery if I only threatened someone verbally?
Yes. The statute states “uses or threatens the imminent use of force.” A verbal threat that causes a person to fear immediate harm and thereby relinquish property or cease resistance can be sufficient to meet this element for a Simple Robbery charge. The key is the victim’s reasonable perception of an imminent threat.
What is the maximum sentence for Simple Robbery in Minnesota?
The maximum sentence for Simple Robbery in Minnesota is ten years imprisonment or a fine of $20,000, or both. The actual sentence will depend on various factors including your criminal history, the specific facts of the case, and Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines.
Will a conviction for Simple Robbery affect my ability to vote?
Yes, a felony conviction, including for Simple Robbery, will temporarily impact your ability to vote. In Minnesota, your right to vote is restored automatically upon discharge from sentence (including probation), but you cannot vote while incarcerated for a felony.
Can I get probation instead of prison for Simple Robbery?
It is possible, but not guaranteed. Probation is a potential outcome, especially for those with no prior criminal history and if mitigating circumstances exist. However, given that Simple Robbery is a felony, prison time is a very real possibility, and securing probation requires a strong, strategic defense.
What if I was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time?
While being under the influence is not a legal defense in itself, it can sometimes be relevant to your ability to form the specific intent required for certain elements of the crime, such as the intent to take property knowing you’re not entitled to it or the specific intent behind the use of force. This is a complex legal argument that needs careful consideration.
How important is surveillance footage in a Simple Robbery case?
Surveillance footage can be extremely important, either for the prosecution or the defense. If it clearly shows the incident, it can be powerful evidence. However, if it’s poor quality, incomplete, or shows something different from the police report, it can be a crucial tool for your defense to challenge the state’s narrative or identification.
What if the property taken was of very little value? Is it still Simple Robbery?
Yes. The value of the property is not an element of Simple Robbery under Minnesota Statute 609.24. Even if the item taken was of minimal value, if all the elements of robbery (taking with knowledge of not being entitled, from a person or in their presence, using or threatening force to overcome resistance) are met, it can still be charged as simple robbery.
Can I be charged with Simple Robbery if I didn’t actually touch the victim?
Yes. The statute states “uses or threatens the imminent use of force against any person.” This includes threats that do not involve physical contact, such as menacing gestures, verbal threats, or implying possession of a weapon, as long as it’s done to compel acquiescence or overcome resistance to the taking of property.
How quickly should I contact an attorney after being accused of Simple Robbery?
Immediately. Do not speak to law enforcement or anyone else about the accusations without legal counsel present. The moments after an accusation are critical for protecting your rights and ensuring that no missteps are made that could harm your defense later.
What if the alleged victim doesn’t want to press charges?
While the victim’s wishes can sometimes influence a prosecutor’s decision, the state ultimately decides whether to pursue charges. Once a crime is reported, especially a felony like Simple Robbery, the state has the authority to prosecute regardless of the victim’s changing desires.
Does Simple Robbery count as a “strike” under any sentencing guidelines?
Yes, in Minnesota, Simple Robbery is classified as a severity level 7 offense on the Sentencing Guidelines Grid. For repeat offenders, this can significantly impact the presumptive sentence, often leading to longer prison terms, as it is considered a serious felony.