Cited by

State v. Ferguson , , 590-91 (Minn. 2012).

“Under the multiple- victim exception, courts are not prevented from giving a defendant multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident if: (1) the crimes affect multiple victims; and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

This statute “generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” (quotation omitted).

The three published opinions are distinguishable because none of them involved a victim wounded by the defendant’s shots: (defendant, convicted of one count of drive-by shooting at an occupied building and eight counts of second-degr ee assault, sentenced to 39 months on the drive-by shooting, 36 months, consecutive, on one assault conviction, and 36 months, concurrent, on the other seven assault convictions, for a

“Wheth er an offense is subject to multiple sentences under Minn. Stat. § 60 9.035 is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Ferguson

“Whether an offense is subject to multiple sentences under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 is a question of law, which [appella te courts] review de novo.” State v. Ferguson

Generally, a court may not sentence a defendant to “multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” see also Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.

Generally, a court may not senten ce a defendant to “multiple se ntences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were commit ted as part of a single behavioral incident.” State v. Ferguson , see Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2014).

State v. Ferguson , , 590 (Minn. 2012).

Thus, the law generally “prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” d 586, 589 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

State v. Ferguson , , 590 (Minn. 2012).

d 725, 731 (Minn. App. 2001).

However, “[u]nder the multiple -victim exception, courts are not prevented from giving a defendant multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident if: (1) the crimes affect multiple victims; and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” State v. Ferguson , d 586, 590 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted).

“The purpose of section 609.035 is to protect against exaggerating the criminality of a person’s conduct and to make both punishment and prosecution commensurate with culpability.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that consecutive sentencing is permissible in cases involving multiple victims); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.15, subd.

d 586, 590 (Minn. 2012).

Thus, the law generally “prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” ().

(“Whether an offense is subject to multiple 9 sentences under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 is a question of law, which [appellate courts] review de novo.”).

(“[T]he legislature did not intend section 609.035 to immunize offenders in every case from the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual.” (quotation omitted)).

Under the multiple victim exception to this rule, however, a court may impose “multiple sentences for multiple crimes arising out of a single behavioral incident if: (1) the crimes affect multiple victims; and (2) multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” (quotation omitted).

This rule does not “immunize” a defendant from “the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual,” or where multiple sentences do not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant’s conduct

(Ferguson II, unrelated to Ferguson I).

But this rule does not “immunize” a defendant from “the consequences of separate crimes intentionally committed in a single episode against more than one individual,” and we therefore recognize an exception to section 609.035 in cases involving multiple victims.