State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1172

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Joshua John Blanchard,
Appellant

Filed December 31, 2018
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Johnson, Judge

Polk County District Court
File No. 60-CR-16-75

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Greg Widseth, Polk County Attorney, Scott A. Buhler, First Assistant County Attorney,
Crookston, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Bradford Colbert, Assistant
Public Defender, Frances Bates (certified student attorney), St. Paul, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Tracy M.
Smith, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JOHNSON, Judge
A Polk County jury found Joshua John Blanchard guilty of multiple drug-related
offenses. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and his sentences. We conclude

2
that the evidence is sufficient to prove that Blanchard knowingly possessed a controlled
substance. We also conclude that the district court did not err by imposing a sentence at
the top of the presumptive range. But we conclude that the district court erred by imposing
two sentences for a single behavioral incident. Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part,
and remand for resentencing.
FACTS
Blanchard’s convictions arise from an investigation into a drug -dealing network in
northwestern Minnesota . On the evening of January 10, 2016, D .K. and an unnamed
woman were arrested in Becker County for possession of methamphetamine. D.K. told a
law-enforcement officer that he had purchased the methamphetamine from Brock
Altringer, who lives in East Grand Forks, and that Altringer possessed more
methamphetamine at his home. Law-enforcement officers obtained and executed a warrant
authorizing a search of Altringer’s apartment. During th at search, officers found a
substantial amount of methamphetamine, a scale, and a large amount of cash.
After being arrested, Altringer cooperated with law enforcement by identifying his
supplier as Robert Delacruz, who at that time lived in North Mankato. Altringer said that
he had purchased methamphetamine from Delacruz on multiple occasi ons in recent
months. Altringer also said that Delacruz did not personally deliver the methamphetamine
to Altringer but, rather, used a courier known as “Jake from State Farm.” Altringer made
recorded telephone calls to Delacruz in which he sought to purchase methamphetamine.
Delacruz agreed to sell approximately one pound of methamphetamine to Altringer for
$15,000.

3
At some time between 11:00 a.m. and 7 :00 p.m. on January 11, 2016, Blanchard ,
who then was living in Madelia, departed from the Mankato area in Delacruz’s ca r.
Blanchard drove to New Ulm to sell marijuana to J.D. Blanchard asked J.D. to drive to St.
Cloud with him to pick up money that he was owed, and J.D. agreed. J.D. fell asleep and
did not awaken until Blanchard had driv en past St. Cloud, at which time Blanchard told
J.D. that he was driving to East Grand Forks, without explaining why he was doing so.
The next morning, a law -enforcement officer was waiting for a drug courier at
Altringer’s apartment building in East Grand Forks. At approximately 6:00 a.m., the
officer saw Blanchard and J.D. arrive in Delacruz’s car. The officer saw Blanchard knock
on the door of Altringer’s apartment. The officer then arrested Blanchard. Officers later
executed a search warrant on the car that Blanchard had driven to Altringer’s apartment
building. Inside the car they found more than 600 grams (or 1.32 pounds) of
methamphetamine, the majority of which was found inside a briefcase on the back seat.
The officers also found marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and documents bearing Delacruz’s
name inside the car . In addition, o fficers found a tablet computer, which appeared to
belong to Blanchard and had recently been used to search the internet for ways to eva de
law-enforcement surveillance and for information related to methamphetamine. Officers
obtained a warrant authorizing the taking of a urine sample from Blanchard, and the sample
tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
The state charged Blanchard with (1 ) conspiracy to commit a first -degree
controlled-substance crime, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1(1) (2014); (2)
first-degree sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1(1);

4
(3) first-degree possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.021,
subd. 2(a)(1) (2014); (4) failure to affix a tax stamp to a controlled substance, in violation
of Minn. Stat. § 297D.09, subd. 1a (2014); and (5) third-degree driving while impaired, in
violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7) (2014).
The case was tried to a jury over four days in January and February of 2017. The
state called 13 witnesses. Blanchard did not testify and did not present any other evidence.
The jury found him guilty of all charges.
Before sentencing, Blanchard filed a motion in which he argued that he should not
be sentenced on both c ount 1 and count 2 because the two charges arose from a single
behavioral incident. The district court denied the motion. In May 2017, the district court
imposed concurrent sentences of 103 months of imprisonment on count 1, 132 months of
imprisonment on count 2, 54 months of imprisonment on count 4, and one year of local
incarceration on count 5. The district court did not impose a sentence on count 3.
Blanchard timely filed a notice of appeal. In December 2017, he moved to stay the
appeal so that he could seek post -conviction relief. This court granted the motion . See
Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.02, subd. 4(4). Blanchard asked the post-conviction court to modify
his sentences pursuant to the Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2016 and State v. Kirby, 899
N.W.2d 485 (Minn. 2017). In February 2018, the district court reduced Blanchard’s
sentence on count 1 to 78 months of imprisonment and reduced his sentence on count 2 to
102 months of imprisonment. In March 2018, this court dissolved the stay of the appeal.

5
D E C I S I O N
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Blanchard first argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions on
counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the ground that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance. He does not challenge the evidence
that he possessed the briefcase that contained methamphetamine; rather, he contends that
the evidence is insufficient to prove that he knew that the briefcase contained a controlled
substance.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction, we undertake “a
painstaking analysis of the record to determ ine whether the evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient” to support the conviction. State v.
Ortega, 813 N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). We must assume that “the
jury believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v.
Caldwell, 803 N.W.2d 373, 384 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). We do “not disturb the
verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and the
requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that the
defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” Ortega, 813 N.W.2d at 100.
A person is guilty of conspiring to commit a crime if he “does some overt act in
furtherance of such conspiracy.” Minn. Stat. § 609.175, subd. 2 (2014). A person is guilty
of first -degree controlled -substance crime if “the person unlawfully sells one or more
mixtures of a total weight of ten grams or more containing . . . methamphetamine.” Minn.
Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1 (1). A person also is guilty of first -degree controlled-substance

6
crime if “the person unlawfully possesses one or more mixtures of a total weight of 25
grams or more containing . . . methamphetamine.” Id., subd. 2(a)(1). A person is guilty of
a crime if he distributes or possesses a controlled substance without affixing the appropriate
tax stamps. Minn. Stat. § 297D.09, subd. 1a.
In this case, Blanchard challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew that
he possessed a controlled sub stance. “Knowledge is customarily determined from
circumstantial evidence.” State v. Ali , 775 N.W.2d 914, 919 (Minn. App. 20 09), review
denied (Minn. Feb. 16, 2010). If the state’s evidence on one or more elements of a charged
offense consists solely of circumstantial evidence, we apply a heightened standard of
review. See State v. Horst , 880 N.W.2d 24, 39 (Minn. 2016); Bernhardt v. State , 684
N.W.2d 465, 477 (Minn. 2004) ; State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. App. 2013).
In such a case, we apply a two-step test to determine the sufficiency of the evidence. State
v. Moore, 846 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Minn. 2014). First, we identify the circumstances proved.
Id. (citing State v. Andersen , 784 N.W.2d 320, 329 (Minn. 2010)). “In identifying the
circumstances proved, we assume that the jury resolved any factual disputes in a manner
that is consistent with the jury’s verdict.” Id. (citing Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 329).
Second, we “examine independently the reasonableness of the inferences that might be
drawn from the circumstances proved” and then “determine whether the circumstances
proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that
of guilt.” Id. (quotations omitted). We must consider the evidence as a whole rather than
examine each piece in isolation. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 332.

7
At the first step of the analysis, we note that the state proved the existence of the
following circumstances: Delacruz, who lived in North Mankato, had previously sold
controlled substances to Altringer. Delacruz uses a courier to deliver controlled substances
to purchasers. Altringer called Delacruz seeking methamphetamine, and Delacruz agreed
to sell him approximately one pound of methamphetamine. Blanchard drove Delacruz’s
car from the Mankato area to Altringer’s apartment building in East Grand Forks. The car
contained approximately one pound of methamphetamine inside a briefcase on the back
seat. Law-enforcement officers found methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug
paraphernalia in the passenger area of the car. Blanchard had recently used his tablet
computer to search the internet for ways to evade law -enforcement surveillance and for
information related to methamphetamine.
At the second step of the analysis, we must “determine whether the circumstances
proved are consistent with guilt.” Moore, 846 N.W.2d at 88 (quotations omitted). The
state asked the jury to infer from the circumstantial evidence that Blanchard knew that there
was a controlled substance in the briefcase. That is a reasonable inference. As a matter of
law, “The presence of a controlled substance in a passenger automobile permits the fact
finder to infer knowing possession of the controlled substance by the driver or person in
control of the automob ile when the controlled substance was in the automobile.” Minn.
Stat. § 152.028, subd. 2 (2014). In addition, the inference urged by the state simply is a
common-sense inference in light of the state’s strong evidence that Delacruz deployed
Blanchard as a courier to deliver methamphetamine to Altringer’s apartment. The supreme
court and this court have upheld other convictions based on similar evidence. See, e.g.,

8
State v. Maldonado , 322 N.W.2d 349, 353 (Minn. 1982) ( concluding that evidence was
sufficient to prove that defendant knowingly possessed marijuana found under driver’s seat
of truck driven by him); Porte, 832 N.W.2d at 308 (concluding that evidence was sufficient
to prove that defendant knowingly possessed crack cocaine fou nd in center glove
compartment of vehicle driven by him).
At the second step of the analysis, we also must “determine whether the
circumstances proved are . . . inconsistent with any rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
Moore, 846 N.W.2d at 88 (quotations omitted). Blanchard contends that the circumstances
proved are consistent with a rational hypothesis that he did not know what was inside the
suitcase. He contends that the briefcase was locked so that he was unable to see its
contents, but the state introduced evidence that the briefcase was actually unlocked when
it was searched. Blanchard also notes that J.D. was not aware that a controlled substance
was in the car, but that fact has little relevance to Blanchard’s knowledge because
Blanchard could have simply refrained from telling J.D. about the methamphetamine.
Blanchard does not attempt to provide any alternative reason why he would be present at
Altringer’s apartment in East Grand Forks in Delacruz’s car. In short, Blanchard has not
identified a rational hypothes is that is consistent with the circumstantial evidence and
inconsistent with guilt.
Thus, the circumstan tial evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts on
counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

9
II. Multiple Punishments
Blanchard next argues that the district court erred by imposing sentences on both
count 1 and count 2 on the ground that the offenses arose from a single behavioral incident.
“[I]f a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this
state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses.” Minn. Stat. § 609.035,
subd. 1 (2014). This statute “generally prohibits multiple sentences, even concurrent
sentences, for two or more offenses that were committed as part of a single behavioral
incident.” State v. Ferguson, 808 N.W.2d 586, 589 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). If
all offenses at issue are intentional crimes, “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, and (2) whether the conduct was motivated by an
effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” State v. Bakken, 883 N.W.2d 264, 270 (Minn.
2016) (citations and quotations omitted). In making this determination, we consider the
relationship of the offenses to each other. See State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825, 829 (Minn.
2011). Determining whether multiple offenses are part of a single behavioral incident is
not a mechanical test but requires an examination of all the facts and circumstances. State
v. Soto, 562 N.W.2d 299, 304 (Minn. 1997); State v. Carr , 692 N.W.2d 98, 101 (Minn.
App. 2005). The state bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
the conduct underlying multiple offenses was not part of a single behavioral incident. State
v. Williams, 608 N.W.2d 837, 841-42 (Minn. 2000). This court applies a de novo standard
of review to a district court’s decision as to whether multiple offenses ar ose from a single
behavioral incident. Bakken, 883 N.W.2d at 270.

10
In this case, the district court concluded that the conspiracy offense in count 1 and
the sale offense in count 2 were not a single behavioral incident. The district court reasoned
that the conspiracy offense consisted not only of Blanchard’s intent to sell the
methamphetamine but also his obtaining and transporting it. The district court further
reasoned that “the final result of the sale [was] not relevant to the underlying conspiracy.”
We begin by considering the first factor, “whether the offenses occurred at
substantially the same time and place.” See Bakken , 883 N.W.2d at 270 (citation and
quotation omitted) . Blanchard does not contend that the two offenses occurred at
substantially the same place. Because North Mankato is approximately 350 miles from
East Grand Forks, it is obvious that the two offenses did not occur at substantially the same
place. Blanchard contends that the offenses occurred at substantially the same time
because Altringer agreed to purchase methamphetamine from Delacruz on January 11,
2016, and the methamphetamine was delivered the next da y. But those two events were
separated by at least 11 hours. Such a gap in time pre cludes a determination that the two
offenses occurred at substantially the same time. See State v. Stevenson, 286 N.W.2d 719,
720 (Minn. 1979) (concluding that multiple offenses separated by approximately five hours
did not occur at substantially same time ); State v. Bishop , 545 N.W.2d 689, 692 (Minn.
App. 1996) (concluding that multiple offenses separated by three hours did not occur at
substantially same time ); State v. Wurst, 350 N.W.2d 482, 483 (Minn. App. 1984)
(concluding that multiple offenses separated by approximately one hour did not occur at
substantially same time).

11
We next consider the second factor, “whether the conduct was motivated by an
effort to obtain a single criminal objective.” See Bakken, 883 N.W.2d at 270 (quotation
and citation omitted). Blanchard contends that “the two offenses were both motivated in
an effort to obtain one single criminal objective —to deliver methamphetamine to Polk
County.” We agree. T he purpose of the first offense, the conspiracy, was to deliver
methamphetamine to Altringer, and that is the second offense. The relationship between
the two offenses is so intertwined that the complaint alleged essentially the same conduct
with respect to both charges. The nature of the two offenses compels a determination that
the two offenses were motivated by a single criminal objective . See Carr, 692 N.W.2d at
102 (concluding that possession of methamphetamine and manufacturing of
methamphetamine were motivated by same criminal objective).
In most cases applying the single-behavioral-incident principle, the two factors align
to indicate the same conclusion. Either both factors indicate that multiple offenses arose
from a single behavioral incident. See, e.g, State v. Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528, 533-34 (Minn.
2014); State v. Infante , 796 N.W.2d 349, 356 -57 (Minn. App. 2011) . Or both factors
indicate that multiple offenses did not arise from a single behavioral incident. See, e.g.,
Bakken, 883 N.W.2d at 270 -71; Bauer, 792 N.W.2d at 828 -31; State v. Bookwalter , 541
N.W.2d 290, 295-96 (Minn. 1995). This case is atypical because one factor points in one
direction while the other factor points in the other direction. To resolve the i ssue, we
observe that the supreme court has stated that t he “essential ingredient” of the single -
behavioral-incident t est is whether a defendant’s conduct was motivated by a single
criminal objective. See State v. Johnson, 141 N.W.2d 517, 525 (Minn. 1966). By putting

12
more emphasis on the second factor than the first factor, we conclude that the two offenses
arose from a single behavioral incident. See State v. Huynh, 504 N.W.2d 477, 483 (Minn.
App. 1993) (concluding that multiple offenses occurring over several months arose from
single behavioral incident for purposes of section 609.035 because defendant’s “criminal
objective was the same” throughout), aff’d, 519 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. 1994); see also State
v. Meland, 616 N.W.2d 757, 760 (Minn. App. 2000) (concluding, on appeal from pre-trial
ruling, that multiple offenses occurring at the same time and place but not motivated by
single criminal objective did not arise from single behavioral incident).
Thus, the district court erred by imposing two sentences on counts 1 and 2.
III. Duration of Sentence
Blanchard last argues that the district court erred by imposing a sentence that is the
longest presumptive sentence allowed by the sentencing guidelines without an upward
durational departure. He contends that the district court should have imposed a shorter
sentence within the presumptive range on the grounds that he had only a small role in the
drug transaction and that Delacruz was the primary actor and the “drug kingpin.”
The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines prescribe presumptive sentences for felony
offenses. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.C (2015). For any particular offense, the presumptive
sentence is “presumed to be appropriate for all typical cases sharing criminal history and
offense severity characteristics.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.B.13 (2015). The applicable
cell in the applicable grid typically states a “presumptive range,” which spans durations
that are “15 percent lower and 20 percent higher than the fixed duration displayed in each
cell.” Minn. Sent. Guidelines 1.B.13.c (2015). “[A]ny sentence within the presumptive

13
range . . . constitutes a presumptive sentence.” State v. Delk, 781 N.W.2d 426, 428 (Minn.
App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010). As a consequence, “This court will not
generally review a district court’s exercise of its discretion to sentence a defendant when
the sentence imposed is within the presumptive guidelines range.” Id.
The district court initially sentenced Blanchard to 103 months of imprisonment on
count 1 and 132 months of imprisonment on count 2. Both sentences were at the top of the
presumptive ranges prescribed by the 2015 guidelines. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.A (2015).
After Blanchard moved to modify his sentences to take advantage of the reduced sentences
arising from the Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2016, the district court resentenced him
to 78 months and 102 months respectively, sentences that are at the top of the presumptive
ranges prescribed by the 2017 guidelines. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 4.C (2017). Blanchard
contends that the district court erred on the ground that it “did not provide any rationale for
sentencing” him as it did. But the district court was required to impose a sentence within
the presumptive range “unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling
circumstances to support” a downward durational departure. Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.D.1
(2015). Blanchard has not cited any caselaw stating that a district court must state a reason
for imposing a particular sentence within the presumptive range instead of a lower sentence
within the presumptive r ange, and we are not aware of any such caselaw. This court has
held that a district court is not obligated to state a reason for imposing a presumptive
sentence instead of departing from the presumptive range. See State v. Johnson , 831
N.W.2d 917, 925 (M inn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. Sept. 17, 2013); State v. Van
Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 80 (Minn. App. 1985). A natural corollary to that principle is that

14
a district court is not obligated to state a reason for imposing a particular sentence within
the presumptive range instead of a lower sentence within the presumptive range.
Blanchard also contends that he should have received lesser sentences on the ground
that Delacruz, whom Blanchard describes as “the acknowledged kingpin,” “received only
a slight ly longer sentence.” We have reviewed the case cited by Blanchard, State v.
Vazquez, 330 N.W.2d 110 (Minn. 1983), and the cases cited therein, and we decline the
invitation to reduce Blanchard’s sentences to make them more proportional to Delacruz’s
sentence. See id. at 113.
Thus, the district court did not err by imposing sentence s on count 1 and count 2
that are at the top of the presumptive ranges.
In sum, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. On remand, the district court
shall resentence Blanchard in a manner that is consistent with part II of this opinion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.