Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528.

160 citing documents.

State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
State v. Boecker 893 N.W.2d 348 Minn. 2017
“A statute is ambiguous only when the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added) (), Here, Boecker pleaded guilty to first-degree DWI, which is defined as: Subdivision 1.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(“Offenses are part of a single course 8 of conduct1 if the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and were motivated by a single criminal objective.” (footnote added)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Whether conduct constitutes more than one offense requires that we determine whether the underlying conduct involved “a single course of conduct.”
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Noor Muhina Salim Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Section 609.035 prohibits “imposition of two separate sentences for convictions involving a single course of conduct.”
Eugene Lee Rushton v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2017
Eugene Lee Rushton v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2017
Comments to the sentencing guidelines, however, are advisory and are not binding on the courts.”
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Edwin Gochingco Reyes 890 N.W.2d 406 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.”
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
1 While the district court utilized the phrase “single course of conduct,” we interpret its decision to refer to a “single behavioral incident” under Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2014), which prohibits multiple sentences for conduct that “constitutes more than one offense.” n.1 (Minn. 2014) (stating that “in the past, we have used the phrases ‘single course of conduct’ and ‘single behavioral incident’ interchangeably”).
State of Minnesota v. Marvin George Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marvin George Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether a defendant’s offenses occurred as part of a single course of conduct is a mixed question of law and fact.”
State of Minnesota v. Ammanuel Ray Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ammanuel Ray Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 883 N.W.2d 264 Minn. 2016
When, as here, all of the crimes at issue contain an intent element, we determine whether the crimes were part of a single behavioral incident by considering (1) whether “the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place,” (Minn. 3 See also Girard v. State, 883 So.
First American Title Insurance Company v. Wayne B. Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
First American Title Insurance Company v. Wayne B. Holstad Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.”
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Danna Rochelle Back v. State of Minnesota 883 N.W.2d 614 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute, is ambiguous oh its face.”
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Henrey Gonzales Minn. Ct. App. 2016
n.1, 533 (Minn. 2014) (using “single course of conduct” and “single behavioral incident” interchangeably in construing Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ralph Joseph Boecker 880 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ralph Joseph Boecker 880 N.W.2d 391 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sedne Bonitaz Williams 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
(finding unity of time when text messages were sent over a period of two-and-one-half hours at the same place).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Appellant, v. Byron David SMITH, Appellant, Respondent 876 N.W.2d 310 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Drljic 876 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Drljic 876 N.W.2d 350 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Broad statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course of conduct.” see also Gould, d at 521 (“[T]he criminal plan of obtaining as much money as possible is too broad an objective to constitute a single criminal goal .
State of Minnesota v. Derik Chester Rekdal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derik Chester Rekdal Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Because appellant can only be sentenced for kidnapping and the most serious crime committed during the course of the kidnapping, which the parties agree is second-degree assault, we remand to the district court to vacate the sentence for terroristic threats
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Mangan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]o determine if the offenses arose from a single behavioral incident, we generally consider the factors of time and place and whether a defendant is motivated by a single criminal objective in committing two intentional crimes.” (“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.”); d 486, 490 (Minn. App. 2002) (“In determining whether the offenses are part of a single behavioral
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vennie Jerome Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.”
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
In re the Matter of: Dakota County, Lorinda Elaine Floding, Below v. Darrell Ray Gillespie 866 N.W.2d 905 Minn. 2015
The first step in statutory interpretation is “to determine whether the statute is ambiguous on its face.”
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs 865 N.W.2d 679 Minn. 2015