Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Tarah Louise Fichtner, 867 N.W.2d 242.

15 citing documents.

In re the Estate of Irvin John Cooper, Sr., Deceased. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
pp. 2000) (“Because this court is limited in its function to correcting errors it cannot create public policy.”), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2000) ; (affirming a district court despite appellant’s “meritorious policy arguments” for reversal, noting that this court “may not disregard unambiguous statutory language”); (citing this aspect of Leifur), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(the offense of test refusal, committed after a DWI arrest and test-refusal advisory, is part of the same behavioral incident as the preceding DWI offense) ; accord State v. Olson , d 692, 701 (Minn. App. 2016); 253-54 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When the facts are not in dispute, the question of 22 whether multiple offenses are part of a singl e behavioral incident is one of law that [appellate courts] review de novo.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Subsequently, this court has consistently held that “ [a driving-while-impaired offense] and test-refusal offense arise from a single behavioral incident and the driver may only be punished for one of the offenses, pursuant to section 609.035.” 253-54 (Minn. App. 2015) (holding that the district court erred in sentencing defendant for driving while impaired, test refusal, and child endangerment because all three offenses arose from the same behavioral inci dent, the defendant’s impaired driving
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
16, 2010).2 When the offenses of conviction include both intentional and nonintentional crimes, we consider whether the offenses “(1) occurred at substantially the same time and place and (2) arose from a continuing and uninterrupted course of con duct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” d 242, 253-54 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sep.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
at 709 (concluding “that third- degree driving under the influence is a more serious offense than second-degree test refusal”); see also State v. Fichtner , (M inn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Fichtner , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
When the crimes have different intent elements, we consider whether the crimes “(1) occurred at substantially the same time and place and (2) arose from a continuing and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.” d 242, 253-54 (Minn. App. 2015), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-54 (Minn. App. 2015) (noting that the supreme court has historically classified DWI offenses as nonintentional crimes), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of establishing that the [district] court abused its discretion and that appellant was thereby prejudiced.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Lee Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When the facts are not in dispute, the question of whether multiple offenses are part of a single behavioral incident is one of law that we review de novo.” Minn. 2015), pet.