Cited by

See, (concluding that two 6 robberies were related because they were separated by minutes in time and one block in distance and they shared the “objective of obtaining money through robbery”); (concluding that the motivation of a single criminal objective to traffic women in the sex trade , even when coupled with a broad interpretation of geographic and time relations, constituted one behavioral incident); (concluding that two b

-658 (Minn. App. 2017) (Ivy I), rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

But “[w]hether a statute or a provision of the sentencing guidelines has been properly construed is a question of law to be reviewed de novo.” rev. denied (Minn. Dec.

The facts are detailed in his fir st appeal, State v. Ivy , review denied (Minn. Dec.

Citing State v. Ivy , review denied (Dec.

review denied (Minn. Dec.

cause the state charged appellant with multiple counts—each with a single victim—for soliciting prostitution and sex trafficking, “appellant’s sentence is inconsistent with Minn. Stat. § 609.322 and the sentencing guidelines because the multiple -victims aggravating factor set forth in section 609.322, subdivision 1(b)(4), was not applicable to any of appellant’s convictions.”

d 652, 664 (Minn. App. 2017).

See State v. Vang , (holding that 9 appellant failed to meet his burden of proving his substantial rights were affected when there was overwhelming evidence of guilt); see also State v. Ivy , review denied (Minn. Dec.

See, e.g., State v. Ivy , , review denied (Minn. Dec.

(concluding there was no prejudice when misconduct “involved a couple of short statements in a closing argument, the transcript of which is more than 50 pages long”) , review denied (Minn. Dec.