Cited by

When a defendant is “convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” district courts should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

When a criminal defendant is “convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” the proper procedure is for the district court to “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

State v. LaTourelle , (emphasis added) .

When a criminal defendant is “convicted on more than one charge for the same act,” the proper procedure is for the district court to “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

(stating “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,” retaining the guilty verdicts on remaining charges, but not formally adjudicatin

: [T]he 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.

When a defendant is convicted of more than one charge for the same act, a district court should “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

When a 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.”

( stating “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,” retaining the guilty verdicts on the remaining charges, but not formally adjudi

Thus, we reverse and remand to the district court to vacate Mullen’s convictions under subdivision 1( e)(ii), and subdivision 1( f)(i)

“Upon 22 prosecution for a crime, the actor may be co nvicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2018); -84 (Minn. 1984) (concluding that “only one conviction can be sustained” because section 609.04 prohibits multiple convi ctions “for a single criminal act”).

When a 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.”

The remaining conviction(s) should not be formally adjudicated at this time.”

Additionally, appellate courts have interpreted the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 609.04 (2016), to prohibit district courts from entering multiple convictions for a single act.4 See -84 (Minn. 1984) (holding that “only one conviction can be sustained” because section 609.04 prohibits multiple convictions “for a single criminal act”); State v. Saxton , d 4 This section also prohibits convictions for both a greater and an included offen

Consequently, we reverse in part and remand with instructions that the distri ct court vacate one conviction and correct the warrant of commitment

The Minnesota Supreme Court has determined 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 fo r the court to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

The remaining conviction(s) should not be formally adjudicated at this time .” State v. LaTourelle

When a 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.”

the [district] court [is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.”

If the adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to t he 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 sentence.”

Even though a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts arising from a single incident, the district court must “adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.” State v. LaTourelle

See State v. LaTourelle , (“We hold that the proper proce dure to be followed by the trial court when the defendant is convicted on more than one ch arge 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.”

See State v. LaTourelle , (establishing the proper procedure for the district court to follow when a defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act).

(stating that a court does not lose jurisdiction over lesser-included offenses to which the defendant is found guilty); (holding that the proper procedure when a defendant is convicted of more than one count for the same act is for the district court to adjudicate and impose a sentence on one count only).

The proper procedure in such cases is for the district court “to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only.” State v. LaTourelle , .

see also Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (2016) (“Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either t h e c r i m e c h a r g e d o r a n included offense, but not both.”).

(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.

9 The remaining conviction(s) should not be formally adjudicated at this time.”