Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Daniel Drljic, 876 N.W.2d 350.

16 citing documents.

Marlow Shelton McDonald v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1; (stating section 609.035 “prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident”); n.1 (Minn. App. 2016) (stating that the phrase “single course of conduct” has the same meaning as the phrase “single behavioral incident”).
State of Minnesota v. Leonard Steven Sanchez Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The phrase “single course of conduct” has the same meaning as the phrase “single behavioral incident.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B and cmt.
State of Minnesota v. Rashad Lavonte Lenear Minn. Ct. App. 2026
le course of conduct, the court must consider (1) “whether the offenses occurred at substantially the same time and place and (2) whether the conduct was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” (addressing whether offenses arose out of a “single behavioral incident”) (citation and quotation omitted); (applying 13 the “single behavioral incident” analysis to the question whether prior offenses involving multiple victims arose from a “single course of conduct”).
State of Minnesota v. George Marten Williamson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To determine whether offenses occurred during a single course of conduct, district courts consider “time, place, and whether the offenses were motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.”
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The phrase “single course of conduct” has the same meaning as the phrase “single behavioral incident.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Minn. Sent’g Guidelines cmt.
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 See, -54 (Minn. App. 2016) (relying on 3 Section 609.035, subdivision 1, generally prohibits the district court from imposing multiple sentences “for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral incident.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Billy Gene Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
To discern whether different storage units in the Deneve Storage complex are also different locations
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Erik Heiderscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allen Chapel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Louis Ambrose v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Louis Ambrose Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We review the district court’s determination of a defendant’s criminal-history score for an abuse of discretion.” ( review denied (Minn. Aug.
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
“[D]eciding whether the district court’s imposition of two sentences was barred by section 609.035, subdivision 1, requires [an appellate court] to determine first whether the conduct underlying the offenses involved a single course of conduct.” 2 “Legal authorities use the terms ‘single course of conduct’ and ‘single behavioral incident’ interchangeably.” n.1 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).