Cited by

We therefore reverse in part and remand with instructions for the district court to vacate the judgment of conviction of unlawful possession of ammunition.4 (“[W]hen the defendant is [found guilty of] more than one charge for the same [criminal] act, [the district court should] adjudicate formally and impose [a] sentence on one count only.”).

See Bonkowske, d at 446 (instructing district court to vacate “one of the convictions”); (explaining “proper procedure to be followed by the [district] court when” defendant is found guilty of multiple offenses based on single criminal act).

“[W]hen the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act” the district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

(“[W]hen the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act [the district court is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.

(“If [an] adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to the remaining unadjudicated conviction(s), one of the remaining unadjudicated convictions can then be formally adjudicated and sentence imposed, with credit, of course, given for time already served on the vacated sent

(holding that, “when the defendant is convicted [of] more than one charge for the same act,” the district court must “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only,” leaving remaining counts without formal adjudication).

(holding that “the proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only”).

(“[T]he proper procedure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”).

5 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

See, d 277, 284 (Minn. 1984) (explaining that section 609.04 prohibits “multiple convictions under different sections of the statute for a single criminal act”).

See, (explaining that section 609.04 prohibits “multiple convictions under different sections of the statute for a single criminal act”); (“[Section 609.04] bars a court from entering two convictions for one act simply because a defendant’s single

See State v. LaTourelle, 26 (holding “that the proper procedure to be followed by the [district] court when the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act is for the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only,” leaving the remaining count without formal adjudication).

for a single criminal act.”

(“If the adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to the remaining unadjudicated conviction(s), one of the remaining unadjudicated convictions can then be formally adjudicated and sentence imposed .

Thus, we reverse Abdeltawwab’s conviction for first-degree witness tampering, leaving the guilty verdict intact, d 277, 284 (Minn. 1984), and remand to the district court to amend the warrant of commitment.

When a defendant is convicted of more than one charge for a single-behavioral incident the district court must “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

(“If the adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to the remaining unadjudicated conviction(s), one of the remaining unadjudicated convictions can then be 15 formally adjudicated and sentence imposed, with credit, of course, given for time already served on the vacated s