In-depth legal guide
Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota
Third-degree burglary has two different theories in § 609.582, subd. 3. Paragraph (a) concerns entry without consent with intent to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, or commission of one inside. Paragraph (b) addresses a building open to the public: a theft inside after a prior no-return warning and a specifically qualifying earlier conviction can create the same felony grade. That second theory should not be described as ordinary unconsented entry. I would inspect the warning, prior judgment, access conditions, and transaction video before treating either theory as proved.
You will work directly with me.
If you hire me, I determine whether paragraph 3(a) or 3(b) is actually charged. I then audit consent or public access, entry and remaining, the timing and identity of the alleged theft or other predicate offense, continuous video and transaction records, the exact no-return warning, certified prior judgment and sentence, offense-date severity level, and any separately charged inside crime.
How the statute applies
Why the maximum is not the likely sentence
Sentencing context for Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota: The statutory maximum for a Minnesota felony is the outer ceiling—not a prediction. The applicable Guidelines grid uses the conviction offense’s severity level and the person’s criminal-history score to identify a presumptive disposition and duration, subject to mandatory statutes and lawful departures.
Official sources for this summary
Source boundary: Paragraph 3(a) is the nonconsensual-entry theory and requires theft, felony, or gross-misdemeanor intent or commission. Paragraph 3(b) concerns an open-to-the-public building and requires both a no-return warning within one year and a specifically qualifying conviction within five years.
Paragraph (a): entry without consent
The state must show intent to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, or that such an offense was committed while inside.
Paragraph (b): public building
Entry into an open-to-the-public building plus theft requires a no-return warning within one year and the specified qualifying conviction within five years.
One felony ceiling, different predicates
Both theories carry up to five years/$10,000, but their entry and predicate proof are not interchangeable.
Choose between the two statutory alternatives
Paragraph (a) uses the § 609.581(4) definition of entry without consent, including unconsented remaining; it requires the particular theft, felony, or gross misdemeanor purpose or completed inside offense. Paragraph (b) expressly concerns a building open to the public, excluding the special buildings in subdivision 2(b). I do not argue lack of consent as if it were an element of every paragraph (b) prosecution.
Audit the warning and prior for paragraph (b)
The state must establish entry within one year after a direction to leave and not return, theft intent or theft inside, and a conviction within five years for one of the listed offenses with the specified felony sentence or eligible stay. I request the exact warning, delivery evidence, certified prior judgment, plea and sentence terms, and dates. A store ban without the required prior is not the same third-degree theory.
Match the scene evidence to the five-year felony ceiling
Subdivision 3’s maximum is five years and $10,000. I compare video from entry through exit, receipts, access logs, and witness accounts to determine who entered, what was allegedly taken or done, and when any intent arose. If the evidence supports only a misdemeanor non-theft purpose or a public-building warning without the qualifying prior, fourth-degree or another charge may be the issue; it is not automatically third-degree burglary.
A practical walkthrough of Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota
A complaint alleging Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota usually compresses a complicated event into a few numbered paragraphs. My first task is to unpack those paragraphs against Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3. I separate the act, the required state of mind, every classification fact, and each claimed consequence so the discussion stays anchored to what the law actually requires.
For Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, minnesota property and financial offenses often sound simple when reduced to a label such as burglary, robbery, identity theft, or card fraud. The statutes are not simple labels. They separate consent, entry, possession, force, identity, authorization, intent, value, loss, aggregation, and degree-setting circumstances. The first job is to identify which of those routes the complaint actually uses.
On this page, that means working through paragraph (a): entry without consent, paragraph (b): public building, and one felony ceiling, different predicates as separate questions. If one question is assumed rather than proved, the analysis of the degree, penalty, or available defense can be wrong even when the remaining facts are largely undisputed.
Third-degree burglary carries a maximum of five years and $10,000 under § 609.582, subd. 3. That ceiling applies to both paragraphs, but the state must prove the paragraph actually charged. I separate it from the presumptive offense-date Sentencing Guidelines calculation and from any independent sentencing allegation; the statute itself does not declare one universal custody minimum.
For paragraph (b), the warning and prior conviction are charge-defining facts, not merely background. They can change the analysis even where the store was open to the public. A release order may affect access to the premises now; restitution depends on proved loss, and employment or licensing questions depend on the eventual disposition and governing rules.
Penalty context for Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota: Up to 5 years and/or $10,000. I treat that language as the statutory outside limit or classification description it is, then check the offense-date law, any route-specific minimum, Minnesota Guidelines or North Dakota sentencing rules as applicable, verified history, and the terms of any proposed disposition. A maximum is not a prediction, and this charge’s familiar label is not a substitute for the sentencing analysis.
From the Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota charging document to a decision you can understand
1. Translate this count before debating the story
For Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, I read the operative count word by word and write the prosecution’s theory in plain English. If the statute contains alternatives, I identify the one actually alleged. If another definition, enhancement, prior offense, age, injury, amount, or location provision is incorporated, I put that source beside the count. This prevents facts that sound serious from silently becoming elements and prevents a fact relevant to one route from being borrowed to prove another.
Start with the legal question: Paragraph (a): entry without consent
The state must show intent to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, or that such an offense was committed while inside.
I put that legal question beside the precise words of the count and identify the record offered for every part of it. For Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, the distinction between a proved fact, a permissible inference, and an unsupported assumption can control whether the charged route fits at all.
Then test the source evidence: Paragraph (b): public building
Entry into an open-to-the-public building plus theft requires a no-return warning within one year and the specified qualifying conviction within five years.
The source matters as much as the summary. I compare the earliest recording or record with later descriptions, ask who created it and what that person could actually observe, and note what remains missing. That is often where Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota changes from a broad allegation into a focused evidentiary dispute.
Keep the degree-setting fact separate: One felony ceiling, different predicates
Both routes carry up to five years/$10,000, but their entry and predicate proof are not interchangeable.
This question deserves its own analysis because it can affect the degree, classification, sentencing framework, or even whether the cited provision applies. I verify the operative date and the underlying documents instead of allowing a shorthand label to decide it.
Reconstruct the timing rather than assuming it: Choose between the two statutory routes
Paragraph (a) uses the § 609.581(4) definition of entry without consent, including unconsented remaining; it requires the particular theft, felony, or gross misdemeanor purpose or completed inside offense. Paragraph (b) expressly concerns a building open to the public, excluding the special buildings in subdivision 2(b). I do not argue lack of consent as if it were an element of every paragraph (b) prosecution.
A reliable answer requires a chronology, not a snapshot. I place the relevant words, acts, records, and witness observations in order and then test whether the claimed inference still holds when the full sequence is visible.
Connect the issue to the decision it can change: Audit the warning and prior for paragraph (b)
The state must establish entry within one year after a direction to leave and not return, theft intent or theft inside, and a conviction within five years for one of the listed offenses with the specified felony sentence or eligible stay. I request the exact warning, delivery evidence, certified prior judgment, plea and sentence terms, and dates. A store ban without the required prior is not the same third-degree theory.
Resolving this point has a practical purpose: it tells us what to investigate, what may require a motion, what can be addressed through negotiation, and what a fact-finder may ultimately have to decide. I connect the rule to that decision rather than listing it as abstract law.
2. Build the Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota chronology from original material
For Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, I build a transaction or event timeline from original records. Depending on the charge, that may include door and access logs, complete surveillance, receipts, contracts, account statements, device and IP records, messages, inventory, recovery records, witness observations, photographs, and valuation material. A summary spreadsheet or officer narrative can help orient the file, but it should not replace the source record or hide gaps in attribution and timing.
The chronology for Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota does more than arrange timestamps. It identifies who created each record, whether it is complete, what the person could observe, whether an exhibit has metadata or an original counterpart, and where the prosecution’s narrative moves from direct evidence to inference. I also preserve favorable material early when video, account data, business records, or third-party information may be overwritten in the ordinary course.
3. Separate the factual disputes from admissibility and remedy
In Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, property cases can present search, identification, authentication, expert, valuation, hearsay, and other evidentiary questions. A business dispute or permission issue may also change whether the criminal statute fits at all. I separate those questions, identify the governing rule, and ask what the prosecution can still prove after the disputed evidence is tested.
In Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, Minnesota procedure supplies different moments for release, discovery, omnibus issues, pleas, trial, and sentencing. I match the disputed issue on this page to the stage that can actually resolve it and to the deadline in the current rule or court order. Filing a motion, negotiating, and preparing for trial are not competing identities; they are parts of one evidence-based defense plan.
4. Compare the real choices on the same proved facts
For Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, a useful resolution comparison addresses more than the headline charge. I compare the conviction offense, admitted conduct, custody and probation, restitution methodology, forfeiture, employment and licensing effects, immigration advice where needed, and whether a dishonesty-related disposition creates a consequence in the client’s actual circumstances. The maximum penalty is one column, not the entire decision.
Before deciding a Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota case, I want you to be able to explain the choice in your own words: what the State can presently prove, what remains uncertain, what a motion or additional investigation could change, what rights a plea would waive, what a trial would require, and how each possible disposition affects the consequence that matters most to you. That is the difference between receiving information and making an informed decision.
What to bring to a substantive Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota review
For a review of Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, bring the complete complaint or citation, every amended count, the alleged offense date, next court date, release or no-contact order, and any administrative notice. Preserve the original messages, photographs, video, receipts, location records, account records, or other material you lawfully possess without editing them. Make a private timeline and list the witnesses and missing records you believe matter. Do not contact a protected person, influence a witness, test the edge of an order, delete data, or create new evidence. Those documents let us spend the conversation applying this charge’s law to your facts instead of guessing about the file.
Third-degree burglary can arise from nonconsensual entry or repeat public-building theft
Section 609.582, subdivision 3(a) is the traditional nonconsensual-entry theory. Paragraph 3(b), added in its present form for repeat public-building theft, starts from a building open to the public and depends on a timely no-return warning plus a qualifying prior conviction. Both are felonies with the same statutory ceiling, but their elements and 2026 Guidelines rankings differ.
| theory | Required facts | 2026 severity |
|---|---|---|
| 3(a) | Entry without consent with intent to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, or entry without consent followed by theft or commission of a felony or gross misdemeanor inside. | Level 4. |
| 3(b) | Entry into an open-to-the-public building other than a subdivision 2(b) building, with theft intent or theft inside, within one year after a no-return warning, plus the specified qualifying conviction and sentence within five years. | Level 3. |
Paragraph 3(a) uses the statutory consent definition
Section 609.581 includes entry without the lawful possessor’s consent, entry obtained by trick or misrepresentation, and remaining after consent ends. A public opening ordinarily supplies consent unless expressly withdrawn before entry. The state must identify the lawful possessor, scope and timing of permission, withdrawal, and whether entry or remaining is alleged. A civil ownership, lease, employment, or relationship dispute may affect those facts but does not decide them by label.
The predicate cannot be an unspecified “bad act”
Paragraph 3(a) requires intent to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, or actual theft or commission of one of those offenses inside. A misdemeanor other than theft belongs to the fourth-degree framework, not paragraph 3(a). I identify the exact predicate, its elements and grade, the timing of intent, the evidence of completion, and whether the charging document and trial instructions keep the alternatives clear.
Paragraph 3(b) is conjunctive
The state must prove the building was open to the public and not one of subdivision 2(b)’s protected buildings; theft intent or theft inside; entry within one year after the person was told to leave and not return; and a qualifying conviction within the preceding five years. The prior must be for a listed Minnesota offense or conforming foreign offense, and the statute further specifies a felony sentence or an eligible stayed sentence for a plea offense allowing a felony sentence. A valid warning alone or a prior alone is not enough.
The warning must be proved as an event, not a database label
I request the original written or recorded notice, who delivered it, authority, identity confirmation, exact words, property covered, duration, date, acknowledgment, and any later permission or rescission. Store databases can contain abbreviations, copied entries, or identity errors. Video and point-of-sale records must also establish the new entry and alleged theft within the one-year period.
The prior requires certified, offense-specific comparison
The state should produce the complaint, plea or verdict, judgment, sentence, stay, and dates for the alleged prior. A foreign conviction requires comparison with a listed Minnesota offense, not similarity by title alone. The five-year calculation and sentence condition are elements of paragraph 3(b)’s theory, while the same prior may raise separate criminal-history questions at sentencing; those are different uses and should not be conflated.
Identification and theft proof still matter
Continuous entrance-to-exit video, image quality, clothing and feature comparison, loyalty or payment data, receipts, inventory methods, witness opportunity, recovery, statements, and alternative users of an account or vehicle all matter. Concealment or failure to scan may be circumstantial evidence, but the state must prove the accused person and the charged intent or theft. Loss-prevention summaries should be compared with original video and transaction data.
Sentencing differs even though the ceiling is the same
Both paragraphs authorize up to five years and/or a $10,000 fine. For offenses on or after August 1, 2026, the Guidelines rank paragraph 3(a) at severity level 4 and paragraph 3(b) at level 3. The conviction theory, offense-date manual, criminal-history score, grid cell, multiple-count rules, and lawful departures determine the presumptive sentence. Section 609.585 may permit conviction or punishment for another crime committed on entry or while inside. Sections 609.11 and 609.1095 apply only if their independent facts and procedures are satisfied.
Collateral consequences require theory-specific advice
Restitution requires supported loss caused by the conduct of conviction. Immigration, firearm eligibility, professional licensing, employment, housing, insurance, store-access restrictions, probation conditions, and future criminal-history treatment can depend on the theory, predicate, admissions, sentence, citizenship, license, and record. They should be checked from the actual proposed disposition, not inferred from “third-degree burglary” alone.
Paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) have different Guidelines rankings
For offenses governed by the 2026 Guidelines, paragraph 3(a) is severity level 4, while the repeat public-building theft theory in paragraph 3(b) is severity level 3. The statutory ceiling remains the same, but the conviction theory still matters to the grid calculation.
Frequently asked questions about Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota
How is the charge classified?
Felony
What is the possible maximum penalty?
Up to 5 years and/or $10,000.
Does a mandatory sentence apply?
No single minimum applies to every third-degree burglary; the precise theory and sentencing statutes control.
What does the prosecution have to prove?
Under § 609.582, subd. 3(a), prove entry without consent and intent to steal or commit a felony or gross misdemeanor, or commission of that offense inside. Under (b), prove public-building entry, theft intent or theft inside, a no-return warning within one year, and the listed qualifying prior conviction within five years.
What records should I preserve before speaking with a lawyer?
Preserve the complaint and charged paragraph; invitations, leases, employment terms, keys, codes, access logs, and communications granting or withdrawing consent; continuous entrance, aisle, register, exit, parking, and body-camera video; receipts, inventory, alarm and point-of-sale records; the original no-return notice, delivery proof, scope, and date; and certified complaints, pleas, judgments, sentences, stays, and discharge dates for every prior the state claims satisfies paragraph 3(b).
A lawyer’s file review of Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota
A useful defense analysis starts by slowing the case down. The title of the charge is not an element, and the largest number in a penalty provision is not a prediction. I read the count, the incorporated definitions, and the alleged facts side by side before I tell a client what I think.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
To understand Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, I start with Minn. Stat. § 609.582, subd. 3 and the version of the law in effect on the alleged date. The offense classification sets the outer framework, but it does not tell us what happened or what the state can prove. I then identify every fact that could change the charge or sentence and look for the record, testimony, or forensic evidence that supports—or contradicts—each one.
From there, I build a proof map. For every required element, I identify the witness, recording, document, test result, or admissible inference the prosecution would rely on, then compare that source with the rest of the file. This separates a disputed fact from a search, statement, or admissibility issue and keeps the analysis focused on problems that can actually affect the case.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Third-Degree Burglary in Minnesota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: ownership and authorization records, contracts, receipts, valuation material, surveillance video, access logs, account and device records, messages, witness interviews, inventory and loss calculations, restitution support, and the evidence offered to prove identity, intent, entry, possession, value, force, or lack of consent. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Fleck, 777 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010), the Minnesota Supreme Court described sufficiency review as viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the conviction.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s trial burden. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the proposition it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the jury instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.