Cited by

“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.”

See State v. Jones , (explaining that offenses are part of a single behavioral inci dent “if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective”).

And “[o]ur objective in statutory interpretation is to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” 5 (citing State v. Jones , ) (internal quotation marks omitted).

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

Whether crimes arise from a single behavioral incident is determined by whether the crimes occur “at substantially the same time and place and [are] motiv ated by a single criminal objective.” State v. Jones

State v. Jones , , 535 (Minn. 2014).

(concluding the defendant’s offenses occurred at substant ially the same time when he sent 33 text messages to the victim in a two-and-a-half-hour span).

Minnesota courts “follow the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines unless the applicable provision is contrary to statute.” State v. Jones

But objectives are narrowly construed in this analysis, because “[b]road statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.”

See, e.g, -34 (Minn. 2014); State v. Infante , -57 (Minn. App. 2011) .

State v. Jones , , 535 (Minn. 2014).

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

State v. Jones , , 533 (Minn. 2014).

See State v. Jones , , 531 n.1 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that the two phrases have been used interchangeably).

d 528, 533 (Minn. 2014).

We interpret a statute to “effectuate the intent of the legislature.” see Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014).

State v. Jones , , 533 (Minn. 2014) (citation omitted).

State v. Jones , , 533 (Minn. 2014).

State v. Jones , , 537 (Minn. 2014).

State v. Jones , , 535 (Minn. 2014).

Determining whether offenses are part of a single behavioral incident is a mixed question of law and fact that requires us to review the facts for clear error and the “application of the law to those facts de novo.”

(declining to address whether the district court erred in entering multiple convictions because the argument was not raised on appeal).

6 See, e.g. , State v. Jones , (defendant violated OFP by sending frightening text messages); State v. Beaty , (defendant violated OFP by sending a letter to the victim threatening her life); (defendant violated OFP by entering the victim’s home without h

“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

(reversing and remanding to the district court with instructions to v acate a sentence when appellant was sentenced for two crimes occurring out of the same behavioral incident).

See State v. Jones , (M inn.

“When the Legislature’s intent is discerna-ble from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted; and courts apply the statute’s plain meaning.”