State v. Walker, 790 N.W.2d 484

Walker was convicted of robbery after Mosley attacked Ouellette while Walker helped obtain the gaming operation’s duffel bag and later split the proceeds.
Thompson coordinated the plan and aided in the robbery, including picking up Mosley and Walker after the crime and storing weapons.
The district court instructed the jury that a conviction could be found if either Walker or Mosley, as an accomplice actually present, satisfied the elements of robbery.
The district court concluded that, under the mandatory minimum sentencing statute, all elements must be satisfied by each defendant, and sentenced Walker to six years with two suspended.
Walker challenged the jury instruction and the cross-appeal questioned the legality of imposing the mandatory minimum sentence.
The State conceded possible appellate issues but did not timely pursue a post-judgment motion to correct an illegal sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accomplice liability and elements	Walker argues elements must be satisfied personally; instruction allowed accomplice present theory.	Walker contends the statute requires personal satisfaction of all elements before conviction.	Accomplice liability can satisfy elements; Walker properly convicted.
State's right to appeal sentence	State seeks review of sentencing under post-judgment statutes.	State cannot appeal a sentence directly or a pre-judgment order under the cited statutes.	State cross-appeal dismissed for lack of statutory basis; improper post-judgment challenge.

State v. Dubs, 390 N.W.2d 41 (N.D. 1986) (accomplice liability can support robbery conviction when participating with another)
State v. Azure, 243 N.W.2d 363 (N.D. 1976) (accomplice who waits in car may be convicted of robbery)
Wika, 574 N.W.2d 831 (N.D. 1998) (Rule 35 and appealability parallel for State and defendant)
State v. Nace, 371 N.W.2d 129 (N.D. 1985) (rule permitting challenge to illegal sentences via Rule 35)
State v. Owens, 570 N.W.2d 217 (N.D. 1997) (Rule 35 applicability to illegal sentence challenges)
City of Riverside v. Smuda, 339 N.W.2d 768 (N.D. 1983) (defendant generally cannot appeal a sentence alone)
State v. Blunt, 785 N.W.2d 909 (N.D. 2010) (interpretation of accompanying working papers and accomplice liability context)