Cited by

Under Minnesota Statutes section 609.035, subdivision 1 (2020) , “ 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.” This protects defendants who have been convicted of multiple offenses “against unfair exaggeration of the criminality of his conduct.” .

This principle protects a defendant from “unfair exaggeration of the criminality of his conduct.”

To determine whether offenses were part of a single behavioral incident, a court considers whether the defendant was motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective, but the fact that both offenses served the purpose of sexual gratification does not unify two separate acts of criminal sexual conduct into a single behavioral incident.

The state had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Iverson’s offenses were not part of a single behavioral incident ; until the state “provides evidence that [the defendant]’s acts were separate and distinct criminal offenses,” the district court must “assume[] that they were part of a single behavioral act .”

- 52 (Minn. App. 2002); see also Kendell, d at 607-08 (“[C]ourts should evaluate the temporal and geographic proximity of the offenses and assess whether the conduct was motivated by an effort to obtain a single criminal objective”); d 517, 525 ( Minn. 1966) (stating that sep

[and] whether the offenses (1) arose from a continuous and unin terrupted course of conduct, (2) occurred at substantially the same time and place, and (3) manifested an indivisible state of mind.” State v. Johnson , - 52 (Minn. App. 2002) (citations omitted).

When determining whether multiple offenses have arisen from a single behavioral incident, we consider the defendant’s “singleness of purpose, i.e., whether the defendant was ‘motivated by a desire to obtain a single criminal objective.’” ( review denied (Minn. Mar.

(recognizing an exception to Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2014) that allows the district court to impose more than one sentence for convictions arising from a single behavioral incident when there are multiple victims).

We also consider whether the offenses “arose from a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct” and whether the offender “manifested an indivisible state of mind.” State v. Johnson , see also State v. Soto , State v. Chidester , review denied (Minn. Mar.

1 (2014); aff’d, (stating that purpose of the sentencing rule is to make punishment commensurate with the crime).