Cited by

(“Offenses are part of a single course of conduct if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”); (clarifying that, when two or more offenses occur in substantially the same p

See L o v. Commissioner of Revenue, Wilson v. Mortgage D-3 Resource Ctr., Inc., (reviewing “findings of historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard” but “district court’s application of the law to those facts de novo”).

(stating that we review district court factual findings for clear error).

Offenses arise from the same course of conduct when they occur “at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”

If a district court imposes multiple sentences in violation of section 609.035, subdivision 1, the reviewing court may “reverse the sentence imposed for [the lesser offense] and remand to the district court with instructions to vacate that sentence.”

(“Broad statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.”).

Two offenses are part of a single behavioral incident if they “occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”

from testifying—“[b]road statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.” d 640, 661 (Minn. App. Apr.

1 (2022) (“if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one offense”); (“deciding whether the district court’s imposition of two sentences was barred by section 609.035, subdivision 1, requires us to determine first whether the conduct underlying the offenses involved a single course of conduct”) .

Offenses are part of a single behavioral incident if they “occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.”

5 See State v. Jones , n.5 (Minn. 2014) (“A consecutive sentence is one which does not begin to run until the expiration of the term of the prior sentence.

“Whether a defendant’s offenses occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.”

“Whether a defendant’s offenses occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.”

“Whether a defendant’s offenses occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.” d 528, 533 (Minn. 2014).

(“Comments to the sentencing guidelines, however, are advisory and are not binding on the courts.”); d 579, 583 (Minn. 2024) (discussing the “nonbinding comments to the guidelines”).

See State v. Jones , (“Offenses are part of a single course of conduct 1 if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motiv ated by a single criminal objective.” (footnote added)).

Whether multiple offenses occurred during a single behavioral incident “depends on the fa cts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Jones , (citing State v. Hawkins , ).

(stating that section 609.035, subdivision 1, prohibits “the imposition of two separate sentences for convictions involving a single course of conduct .

(analyzing whether offenses for stalking and violation of an order for protection were motivated by a single criminal objective); -02 (Minn. App. 2005) (analyzing whether offenses of possession and manufacture of methamphetamine were motivated by a single crimina

Whether multiple offenses arose from a single behavioral incident “depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.” ().

But such “[b]road statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.”

Whether two or more offenses arise from a single behavioral incident is “a mixed question of law and fact.”

“Whether a defendant’s multiple offenses occurred during a single course of conduct depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.” d 528, 533 (Minn. 2014).

Crimes arise from the same behavioral incident if they “occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.” see, (concluding that the defendant’s simultaneous possession of different drugs in his home was a single behavioral incident resulting in only one sentence).

(internal quotation marks omitted) ( ).

Offenses are part of a single course of conduct if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.” (citations omitted).

4 Offenses occurred in a single behavioral incident if they “occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.” State v. Jones

The relevant inquiry under section 609.035 is whether the offenses were committed as part of a “single course of conduct.”

State v. Degroot , (“We review the district court’s findings of historical fact under the clearly erroneous standard, but we review the district court’s application of the law to those facts de novo.”).

This determination involves “ a mixed question of law and fact.”

To evaluate the unity of time, this court asks whether “the offenses occurred at substantially the same time.” 9 (concluding that 33 text messages sent during a two and one -half hour period, averaging one text every four minutes, occurred at substantially same time) (emphasis added), with State v. Degroot , (concluding that a morning solicitation for sex and afternoon

“Whether a defendant’s offense occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.”

at 358 (“We conclude that appellant’s conviction arose not from a single act, but from a single behavioral incident, which allows multiple convictions but not multiple sentences.”); see also, -34 (Minn. 2014) (pursuant to section 609.035, vacating one of the two imposed sentences for stalking and violating an order for protection because the conduct underlying the offenses arose out of Jackson, (“[S]ection 609.04 bars m

And “[b]road statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.” State v. Jones , d 528, 533 (Minn. 2014); see also State v. Barthman , (determining that the broad criminal objectiv e of “sexual gratific ation” did not unify 1 This is in contrast to cases such as State v. Spears , in

“Whether a defendant’s offenses occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.”