State of Minnesota v. Heath Jarrette Allen, III, A16-311

On April 18, 2015, Allen and an accomplice followed two men off a bus, punched them, and took their property; Allen was charged with two counts of aggravated first‑degree robbery for that incident.
On April 19, 2015, the same pair followed another man, Allen punched and repeatedly kicked him, fracturing his skull, then took his property; Allen was charged with aggravated first‑degree robbery and first‑degree assault for that incident.
Allen pleaded guilty to all four counts. At sentencing he and a social‑service witness testified about his background, mental‑health issues, treatment, and desire to avoid future crimes.
The prosecutor had indicated four community‑impact statements would be read, but after testimony the court proceeded to impose sentence without allowing allocution by the prosecutor, victims, defense counsel, or Allen; no objection was made at sentencing.
The court imposed concurrent prison terms (58 and 68 months for the April 18 robberies; 160 months for the April 19 assault and robbery). Allen appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to afford allocution before sentencing	Error harmless because court had and relied on the presentence report	Court’s denial of allocution was reversible error	Harmless error — presentence report and court discussion showed defendant’s background was considered, so no reversal required
Multiple sentences for offenses from same behavioral incident (April 19 assault and robbery)	Court may punish separately	Both offenses arose from the same incident and single objective (steal property); cannot be punished twice	Reversed as to April 19 counts; remanded to vacate one sentence and resentence on only one count
Upward departure from recommended sentence without findings	Not addressed on merits now	Argued there were not adequate findings supporting departure	Court did not decide; directed district court to address this issue on remand

State ex rel. Searles v. Tahash, 136 N.W.2d 70 (Minn. 1965) (failure to allow defendant allocution is error)
State v. Young, 610 N.W.2d 361 (Minn. App. 2000) (same)
State ex rel. Krahn v. Tahash, 144 N.W.2d 262 (Minn. 1966) (harmlessness where presentence investigation assured court considered defendant’s version and background)
State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2011) (statute bars multiple punishment for a single behavioral incident)
State v. Bakken, 883 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2016) (test for single behavioral incident when offenses include intent: same time/place and single objective)
State v. Edwards, 774 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 2009) (statute’s purpose to prevent multiple punishment and align punishment with criminality)