§
Subdivision 1.Concurrent, consecutive sentences; specification requirement.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c), when separate sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant for two or more crimes, whether charged in a single indictment or information or separately, or when a person who is under sentence of imprisonment in this state is being sentenced to imprisonment for another crime committed prior to or while subject to such former sentence, the court in the later sentences shall specify whether the sentences shall run concurrently or consecutively. If the court does not so specify, the sentences shall run concurrently.
(b) When a court imposes sentence for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense and specifies that the sentence shall run consecutively to any other sentence, the court may order the defendant to serve time in custody for the consecutive sentence in addition to any time in custody the defendant may be serving for any other offense, including probationary jail time or imprisonment for any felony offense.
(c) An inmate of a state prison who is convicted of committing an assault within the correctional facility is subject to the consecutive sentencing provisions of section 609.2232.
§
Subd. 2.Limit on sentences; misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor.
If the court specifies that the sentence shall run consecutively and all of the sentences are for misdemeanors, the total of the sentences shall not exceed one year. If the sentences are for a gross misdemeanor and one or more misdemeanors, the total of the sentences shall not exceed two years. If all of the sentences are for gross misdemeanors, the total of the sentences shall not exceed four years.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
67
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case:
State v. Hahn, 799 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Hahn, 799 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “In 1963, long before enactment of the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines, the Minnesota legislature enacted Minnesota Statutes section 609.15. 1963 Minn. Laws ch. 753, art.”
State v. Brom, 463 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Imposition of Consecutive Life Sentences Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing three of his four life sentences consecutively.”
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr., 855 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 3× “2d at 452 ; see also Minn. Stat. § 609.15 , subd. 1(a) (2012) (granting the sentencing court discretion to decide whether certain sentences should run concurrently or consecutively).”
State v. Kier, 678 N.W.2d 672 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “24, a gross misdemeanor, is to be served consecutively to his felony conviction, his sentence falls under section 609.15, which provides: When a court imposes sentence for a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense and specifies that the sentence shall run consecutively to any…”
State v. Bluhm, 676 N.W.2d 649 (Minn. 2004).
· cites it 4× “[4] Minnesota has made significant strides forward in working on preventative measures for alcohol- and drug-related crimes, including our drug court initiatives, [5] restorative justice, Minn.Stat. § 609.15, staggered sentencing and other rehabilitative programs.”
State v. Vang, 847 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “2003); see also Minn.Stat. § 609.15, subd. 1 (2012); Minn.”
State v. Cermak, 350 N.W.2d 328 (Minn. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 609.15, subd. 2 (1982). Appellant alleges the maximum number of consecutive sentences of first-degree criminal sexual conduct allowed without a consecutive service departure is eight the number of separate victims of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”
State v. Gilbert, 634 N.W.2d 439 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 18× “Appellant argues that the district court erred by imposing its sentence consecutive to a later-imposed sentence from another county because doing so violates Minn.Stat. § 609.15, subd 1(a) (2000). We agree and reverse.”
State v. Roy, 928 N.W.2d 341 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 6× “See Minn. Stat. § 609.15 , subd. 1(a) (2018).”
State v. Blanche, 696 N.W.2d 351 (Minn. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 609.15, subd. 1 (2004). The postconviction court clarified that it was the court’s intent to impose consecutive sentences through an upward sentencing departure and to impose the maximum amount of time possible on Blanche.”
State v. Olson, 291 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1980).
· cites it 4× “4. The imposition of three consecutive life sentences for the first-degree murder of three separate victims in a single behavioral incident is not barred by either Minn.”
— Minn. Stat. § 609.15(1) — 1 case
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.