Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2026)

Crime Punishable Under Different Provisions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Conduct; multiple crimes; chargeable for one offense.

Except as provided in subdivisions 2, 3, 4, and 5, and in sections 609.2114, subdivision 3, 609.251, 609.2691, 609.486, 609.494, 609.585, and 609.856, and Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 609.21, subdivision 1b, 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 and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them. All the offenses, if prosecuted, shall be included in one prosecution which shall be stated in separate counts.

Subd. 2.Consecutive sentences.

(a) When a person is being sentenced for a violation of a provision listed in paragraph (e), the court may sentence the person to a consecutive term of imprisonment for a violation of any other provision listed in paragraph (e), notwithstanding the fact that the offenses arose out of the same course of conduct, subject to the limitation on consecutive sentences contained in section 609.15, subdivision 2, and except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (f).

(b) When a person is being sentenced for a violation of section 171.09, 171.20, 171.24, or 171.30, the court may not impose a consecutive sentence for another violation of a provision in chapter 171.

(c) When a person is being sentenced for a violation of section 169.791 or 169.797, the court may not impose a consecutive sentence for another violation of a provision of sections 169.79 to 169.7995.

(d) This subdivision does not limit the authority of the court to impose consecutive sentences for crimes arising on different dates or to impose a consecutive sentence when a person is being sentenced for a crime and is also in violation of the conditions of a stayed or otherwise deferred sentence under section 609.135.

(e) This subdivision applies to misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations of the following if the offender has two or more prior impaired driving convictions as defined in section 169A.03 within the past ten years:

(1) section 169A.20, subdivision 1, driving while impaired;

(2) section 169A.20, subdivision 2, test refusal;

(3) section 169.791, failure to provide proof of insurance;

(4) section 169.797, failure to provide vehicle insurance;

(5) section 171.09, violation of condition of restricted license;

(6) section 171.20, subdivision 2, operation after revocation, suspension, cancellation, or disqualification;

(7) section 171.24, driving without valid license; and

(8) section 171.30, violation of condition of limited license.

(f) When a court is sentencing an offender for a violation of section 169A.20 and a violation of an offense listed in paragraph (e), and the offender has five or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents, as defined in section 169A.03, within the past ten years, the court shall sentence the offender to serve consecutive sentences for the offenses, notwithstanding the fact that the offenses arose out of the same course of conduct.

[See Note.]

Subd. 3.Exception; firearms offenses.

Notwithstanding section 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction of a violation of section 609.165 or 624.713, subdivision 1, clause (2), is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.

Subd. 4.Exception; arson offenses.

Notwithstanding section 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction of a violation of sections 609.561 to 609.563 or 609.5641 is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct when the defendant is shown to have violated sections 609.561 to 609.563 or 609.5641 for the purpose of concealing any other crime.

For purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines, a violation of sections 609.561 to 609.563 or 609.5641 is a crime against the person.

Subd. 5.Exception; fleeing a peace officer.

Notwithstanding subdivision 1, a prosecution or conviction for violating section 609.487 is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct. If an offender is punished for more than one crime as authorized by this subdivision and the court imposes consecutive sentences for the crimes, the consecutive sentences are not a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.

Subd. 6.Exception; criminal sexual conduct offenses.

Notwithstanding subdivision 1, a prosecution or conviction for committing a violation of sections 609.342 to 609.345 with force or violence is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct. If an offender is punished for more than one crime as authorized by this subdivision and the court imposes consecutive sentences for the crimes, the consecutive sentences are not a departure from the Sentencing Guidelines.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 457 cases (27 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 2014). · cites it 66× “In this case, we consider whether the statutory prohibition against multiple punishments in Minn.Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 (2012), bars the imposition of separate sentences for multiple current felony convictions involving one victim and a single course of conduct when the…”

State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 47× “In addition, Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (2006) prohibits cumulative punishment for conduct that constitutes more than one offense.”

State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 1995). · cites it 76× “Because the record failed to show confinement of the complainant beyond that connected with the attempted murder and criminal sexual conduct offenses, the court of appeals held that the trial court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence for the kidnapping offense and remanded…”

Munt v. State, 920 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. 2018). · cites it 62× “We turn next to Munt's arguments regarding Minn. Stat. § 609.035 . Under that statute, "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.”

State v. Williams, 771 N.W.2d 514 (Minn. 2009). · cites it 29× “The State counters that a felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction is an exception to the single-behavioral-incident rule under Minn.Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 (2008), and, therefore, the district court properly included that conviction in appellant’s criminal-history score.”

State v. Edwards, 774 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 2009). · cites it 26× “2d 667, 672 (1968), we established a "multiple-victims" exception to Minn.Stat. § 609.035. Specifically, we concluded that "multiple crimes against multiple victims permit the imposition of more than one sentence.”

State v. Ferguson, 808 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 35× “On appeal, the court of appeals held that Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (2010) required the district court to sentence Ferguson only on the drive-by shooting at an occupied building conviction and remanded for resentencing on that conviction.”

State v. Kebaso, 713 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 35× “This case presents the issue of whether a court is permitted to consider the immigration consequences to a criminal defendant when deciding which of multiple sentences to vacate or which of multiple offenses to sentence on under Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (2004). The court of appeals…”

State v. Bauer, 792 N.W.2d 825 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 28× “The question presented in this case is whether the district court violated Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2010) when it sentenced appellant Cody Bauer (Bauer) for both selling a controlled substance and failing to affix tax stamps to the controlled substance.”

State v. Ross, 732 N.W.2d 274 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 50× “However, because Ross could not have been properly charged and tried on all four offenses due to the interplay between our joinder rule and Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (2006), we direct that one of Ross's theft-by-swindle convictions be vacated.”

State v. Smith, 669 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 26× “2(3) (2002); (6) the court did not properly order appellant to pay restitution; and (7) the court erred when it sentenced appellant on each count of conviction because Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (2002) prohibits punishing a defendant for more than one crime arising out of a single…”

State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 11× “04 as included offenses; (2) under Minn.Stat. § 609.035 (2004), he cannot receive multiple sentences for the 19 counts possession of child pornography; (3) the district court abused its discretion in its assignment of severity levels to the offenses; and (4) the district court’s…”

Show all 457 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.