State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim, A16-0294

Noor Muhina Salim and A.A. traveled together; after a dispute over money, Salim went to A.A.’s apartment on Jan. 25, 2015 to demand payment.
During the visit Salim took A.A.’s cell phone, a physical altercation followed, A.A. sustained bruises and cuts, and Salim fled with the phone.
Police identified and charged Salim with first-degree aggravated robbery, simple robbery, theft, interference with a 911 call, two counts of fifth-degree assault, and disorderly conduct; jury convicted on seven counts.
At sentencing the court imposed disposition only on first-degree aggravated robbery but formally adjudicated guilt on all counts in the written judgment.
Salim appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for aggravated-robbery (no bodily harm during the taking) and that several convictions are lesser-included offenses that must be vacated.

Issue	Salim’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether bodily harm occurred during the "taking or carrying away" to sustain 1st‑degree aggravated robbery	Harm occurred after Salim put phone in pocket, so not during the taking/carrying away; insufficient evidence	The fight (injuries) occurred during the carrying away of the phone and supports aggravated robbery	Affirmed: jury could reasonably find bodily harm occurred during carrying away, supporting 1st‑degree aggravated robbery
Whether simple robbery is a lesser‑included offense of 1st‑degree aggravated robbery	Vacate simple‑robbery adjudication as it is necessarily included	Conceded by state	Reverse and remand to vacate the simple‑robbery adjudication
Whether theft is a lesser‑included offense of 1st‑degree aggravated robbery	Vacate theft adjudication as necessarily included	Conceded by state	Reverse and remand to vacate the theft adjudication
Whether fifth‑degree assault and disorderly conduct are lesser‑included offenses of 1st‑degree aggravated robbery	Fifth‑degree assault is lesser‑included (Stanifer/Coleman/McClenton); disorderly conduct is also argued to be lesser‑included	State: fifth‑degree assault has elements not required for robbery; disorderly conduct requires knowledge element not in assault	Reverse and remand to vacate both adjudicated counts of fifth‑degree assault; affirm disorderly conduct (not lesser‑included)

State v. Kvale, 302 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 1981) (harm during the carrying away, not only at the moment of taking, can support robbery)
State v. Burrell, 506 N.W.2d 34 (Minn. App. 1993) (use of force immediately after taking may be part of carrying away for robbery)
State v. Brown, 597 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. App. 1999) (force used while attempting to leave with stolen goods can accompany the carrying away)
State v. Stanifer, 382 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. App. 1986) (fifth‑degree assault is a lesser‑included offense of simple robbery)
State v. Coleman, 373 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1985) (aggravated robbery comprises an assault plus theft)
State v. McClenton, 781 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. App. 2010) (applies Coleman’s approach to aggravated robbery as assault plus theft)
State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2006) (an offense is necessarily included if impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser)
State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 1999) (appellate courts must reverse and remand to vacate formal adjudications of guilty on lesser‑included offenses)