Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825.

135 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Doan Meshell Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“Because Bauer failed to challenge restitution before the district court, his claim is procedurally barred.”), aff’d, d 825 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When a defendant has been found guilty of multiple intentional offenses, 1 a court considers whether (1) there is a unity of time and place; and (2) whether defendant’s conduct was “motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Walter Wayne Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter Wayne Urban Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luke Brandon Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether the offenses arose from the same behavioral incident depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.” aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1 (2014); aff’d, (stating that purpose of the sentencing rule is to make punishment commensurate with the crime).
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dean Aaron Anderson 865 N.W.2d 712 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (“Bauer committed the third-degree controlled substance crime when he sold 10 ecstasy pills to the CI.”).
State of Minnesota v. Mo Savoy Hicks 864 N.W.2d 153 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mario Gonzalez Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “interpreted section 609.035 to bar multiple sentences for crimes that arise from a single behavioral incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie JoNell Guscette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-28 (Minn. 2011) (Bauer II).
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Victor Dupree Whitehead Minn. Ct. App. 2014
1 (2012); d 825, 827 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ernest Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In order to determine whether two intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, [courts] consider factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janiece Rochelle Asante Minn. Ct. App. 2014
conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.’” (quoting State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 404, ).
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bernard Miles Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“When conducting a single-behavioral-incident analysis for two intentional crimes, Minnesota courts consider whether the conduct (1) shares a unity of time and place and (2) was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.”1 (d 837, 841 (Minn. 2000)), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Alex Cennedi Closmore Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine whether “two intentional crimes are part of a single behavioral incident, we consider factors of time and place and whether the segment of conduct involved was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” d 825, 828 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones 848 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 2014
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. McCauley 820 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
” , 478 n. 3 (Minn.App.2009) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 429 (9th ed.2009)), aff'd
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Infante 796 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
While the concept of the single behavioral incident is generally employed in determining sentencing on multiple offenses, see, -28 (Minn.2011), the Minnesota Supreme Court has also used it in the context of a jury-unanimity ease, see Ihle, d at 919 (where defendant’s actions in obstructing-legal-proeess case were part of a “single behavioral incident,” *357 jury was not required to unanimously agree on his specific actions); see