Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Munt v. State, 920 N.W.2d 410.

44 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Simon Christopher Mueller, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DeMarcus LeMaine Barker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Appellate courts “review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence for an abuse of discretion.” .
A24-1949 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In other words, “acts that lack a unity of time and place or are motivated by different criminal objectives do not constitute a single behavioral incident, and therefore, are not conduct for purposes of section 609.035.” -17 (Minn. 2018).
A24-1308 Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
Joel Marvin Munt, Appellant, vs. State of Minnesota, Respondent Minn. 2025
1 See State v. Munt (Munt I), Munt v. State (Munt II), Munt v. State (Munt III), Munt v. State (Munt IV)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(explaining that “conduct” under section 609.035 refers to a “single behavioral incident”).
Juan Silva, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“But if the motion implicates more than simply the sentence, the motion is properly treated as a petition for postconviction relief and the limitations period in the post-conviction statute applies.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devin Matthew Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devin Matthew Weiland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And the Minnesota Supreme Court has determined that the multiple-victim rule does not violate the separation of powers, and does not violate the bar on double jeopardy
A23-0163 Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A23-0163 Jose Armando Padilla v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-18 (Minn. 2018) (concluding that several offenses committed within a 30-minute period were not part of the same course of conduct because they were motivated by different criminal objectives); cf. Jones, d at 533 (“Broad statements of criminal purpose do not unify separate acts into a single course o
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Steven Proell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Steven Proell, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Raymond Clyde Robideau, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“We review a district court’s denial of a motion to correct a sentence for an abuse of discretion.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But “acts that lack a unity of time and place or are motivated by different criminal objectives do not constitute a single behavioral incident, and therefore, are not ‘conduct’ for purposes of section 609.035.” -17 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State v. Rhoades , - 19 (Minn. 2018) (describing the multiple-victim rule) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“‘[C]onduct’ refers to a ‘single behavioral incident’”—that is, “ acts committed at substantially the same time and place” with “a single criminal objective.” -17 (Minn. 2018) ().
A22-0300 Minn. 2023
We also affirmed the district court’s denial of Munt’s first postconviction petition, Munt v. State (Munt II), and the district court’s denial of Munt’s motion to correct his sentence, Munt v. State (Munt III)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Under section 609.035, subdivision 1, “if 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.” The statute “limits the imposition of punishment.” d 410, 416 (Minn. 2018).
Carlos Orlandos Smith, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, d 410, 417-18 (Minn. 2018) (analyzing only whether multiple criminal acts were motivated by the same criminal objective).
Eric John Henderson-Bey, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jason Lee Bolstad Minn. 2021
Kevin Terrance Hannon, Minn. 2021
Raymond Cortez Steward, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, e.g., Munt v. State , (concluding that, unlike claims pu rsuant to section 609.035, post conviction claims based on section 609.04 are not properly brought under rule 27.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure because section 609.04 relates to convictions, not sentences); Spears, d at 726-27 (conducti
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Minn. 2020
State v. Johnson , –25 (Minn. 1966); –17 (Minn. 2018) (“[A]cts that lack a unity of time and place or are motivated by different criminal objectives do not constitute a single behavioral incident, and therefore, are not ‘conduct,’ for purposes of section 609.035.”).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
As we recently explained, “behavior that harms one victim is not the same ‘conduct’ for purposes of [section 609.035] as behavior that harms multiple victims.” Munt v. State
Daniel Lynn Conley, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Rossberg v. State 932 N.W.2d 6 Minn. 2019
Munt v. State , , 415 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Branch 930 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Branch 930 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Munt v. State , , 418-419 (Minn. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Johnson v. State 925 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Johnson v. State 925 N.W.2d 287 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Munt v. State , , 414 (Minn. 2018) ("A sentence is unauthorized if it is contrary to law or applicable statutes."