Understanding Minnesota’s Approach to Multiple Charges in Burglary Cases: Navigating § 609.585 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Area
The principle of double jeopardy, which generally protects individuals from being tried or punished multiple times for the same offense, is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence. However, its application can be complex, especially when a single criminal incident involves multiple distinct criminal acts. In Minnesota, when an individual commits burglary and also perpetrates other crimes during that unlawful entry, Minnesota Statute § 609.585 comes into play. This statute clarifies that a conviction for burglary does not prevent a separate conviction and punishment for any other crimes committed while entering or inside the building. For those facing such charges in the Twin Cities region, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County, understanding the implications of this law is crucial, as it can lead to multiple convictions and cumulative penalties stemming from what might seem like a single event.
Navigating the legal landscape where burglary intersects with other offenses requires a nuanced understanding of how § 609.585 operates. This provision ensures that the act of burglary itself, and any additional crimes like theft, assault, or property damage committed during the course of the burglary, can be addressed independently by the criminal justice system. This means individuals in surrounding Minnesota counties such as Anoka, Carver, or Dakota must be aware that they can face separate charges, convictions, and sentences for each distinct crime. A confident and strategic approach to defense necessitates a thorough examination of each alleged offense and a clear comprehension of how this statute impacts the overall legal exposure.
Minnesota Statute § 609.585: The Law Governing Multiple Convictions in Burglary Incidents
Minnesota state law specifically addresses the issue of multiple convictions arising from a burglary. The key statute in this regard is Minnesota Statute § 609.585, which clarifies the state’s position on prosecuting individuals for both burglary and other crimes committed during the commission of that burglary.
609.585 DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
Notwithstanding section 609.04, a prosecution for or conviction of the crime of burglary is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed on entering or while in the building entered.
Understanding Double Jeopardy and Its Application Under § 609.585 in Minnesota
The concept of double jeopardy is a fundamental right, enshrined in both the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. It generally aims to protect individuals from governmental overreach by preventing repeated prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same offense. However, the application of this principle becomes intricate when a single course of conduct involves actions that could constitute several different crimes. Minnesota Statute § 609.585 directly addresses this complexity in the context of burglary. It explicitly states that being prosecuted for or convicted of burglary does not shield an individual from also being convicted of, and punished for, any other distinct crimes they commit upon entering or while inside the burgled building. This provision is critical for anyone facing burglary charges in Hennepin County, Ramsey County, or elsewhere in Minnesota, as it underscores the potential for multiple convictions arising from one incident.
- General Principle of Double Jeopardy: Double jeopardy traditionally protects an individual in three primary ways: it bars a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal; it bars a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction; and it bars multiple punishments for the same offense. The core idea is that the state should not get repeated chances to convict someone for a single alleged crime, nor should a person be punished more than once for the same criminal conduct. Defining what constitutes the “same offense” is often a key legal question in these analyses.
- Minnesota Statute § 609.585 as a Legislative Clarification: Minnesota Statute § 609.585 serves as a specific legislative directive that burglary and any other crime committed during that burglary (e.g., theft, assault, criminal damage to property) are to be treated as separate offenses for purposes of conviction and punishment. This means that even if the crimes occurred in close temporal proximity or as part of a continuous course of conduct, the legislature has determined that they address distinct societal harms and can therefore be prosecuted and punished independently. The statute effectively prevents an argument that the other crime “merges” into the burglary or vice-versa for the purpose of avoiding separate convictions.
- Rationale Behind § 609.585: The legislature’s intent in enacting § 609.585 likely stems from a desire to ensure full accountability for all criminal behavior. Burglary itself is an invasion of property and security, often involving unlawful entry into a protected space. The crimes committed during that burglary, such as stealing property, assaulting an occupant, or vandalizing the premises, represent additional and distinct violations of law and harms to victims. This statute allows the criminal justice system to address each of these harms separately, potentially leading to more comprehensive justice for victims and society.
- Interaction with Other Statutory Principles (e.g., § 609.035 and § 609.04): Minnesota Statute § 609.585 explicitly states it operates “Notwithstanding section 609.04.” Section 609.04 deals with convictions of lesser included offenses. Furthermore, Minnesota has a general rule under § 609.035 that limits punishment to a single sentence if a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense and was part of a single behavioral incident. However, § 609.585 creates a clear exception to these limiting principles in the context of burglary, signaling the legislature’s intent to allow separate punishments for burglary and contemporaneous crimes.
Implications of § 609.585 on Sentencing in Minnesota Burglary Cases
The existence of Minnesota Statute § 609.585 has profound implications for sentencing in cases where a burglary is accompanied by other criminal acts. This law ensures that an individual can face the full weight of penalties for each distinct offense, potentially leading to a significantly more severe overall sentence than if the crimes were merged or treated as a single punishable event. For those accused in the Twin Cities and surrounding Minnesota counties, understanding these cumulative sentencing possibilities is a critical aspect of assessing their legal jeopardy.
Penalties for the Underlying Burglary
First and foremost, an individual convicted of burglary will face the penalties associated with that specific offense under Minnesota Statute § 609.582. These penalties vary significantly depending on the degree of burglary (First, Second, Third, or Fourth Degree), with factors such as whether the building was an occupied dwelling, the presence of a weapon, or an assault during the burglary dictating the severity. Penalties can range from gross misdemeanors with up to 364 days in jail for fourth-degree burglary to serious felonies with potential imprisonment of up to 20 years for first-degree burglary, including mandatory minimum sentences in certain circumstances.
Separate Penalties for Crimes Committed During the Burglary
Crucially, § 609.585 allows for separate convictions and, consequently, separate penalties for any other crimes committed “on entering or while in the building entered.” Common examples include theft of property (Minn. Stat. § 609.52), assault (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.221-609.224), criminal damage to property (Minn. Stat. § 609.595), or even more serious offenses like robbery or sexual assault. Each of these crimes carries its own statutory penalty range, which will be applied independently of the burglary sentence. For instance, a felony theft conviction could add several more years of potential imprisonment and substantial fines on top of the burglary sentence.
Potential for Consecutive Sentencing
One of the most significant consequences of § 609.585 is the increased likelihood of consecutive sentences. While Minnesota sentencing guidelines often favor concurrent sentences (where multiple sentences are served simultaneously) for crimes arising from a single behavioral incident, § 609.585 explicitly permits separate punishment. This opens the door for judges to order that the sentence for a crime committed during the burglary be served consecutively to (after) the sentence for the burglary itself. This can dramatically increase the total time an individual spends incarcerated. The decision to impose consecutive sentences often depends on the severity of the offenses, the defendant’s criminal history, and judicial discretion.
Impact on Criminal History Score and Future Sentencing
Accumulating multiple convictions from a single criminal episode, as permitted by § 609.585, will also have a substantial impact on an individual’s criminal history score under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Each felony conviction, for example, adds points to this score. A higher criminal history score means that if the individual is convicted of any new felony offense in the future, the presumptive sentence will be significantly harsher. Therefore, the effect of § 609.585 extends beyond the immediate case, potentially leading to more severe consequences for any subsequent brushes with the law.
Illustrative Scenarios: § 609.585 in Action in Metro Area Burglary Cases
The practical impact of Minnesota Statute § 609.585 is best understood through concrete examples. This law ensures that prosecutors in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and across the Twin Cities metropolitan area can pursue separate charges and convictions for burglary and any distinct crimes committed in conjunction with it. This approach reflects a legislative intent to hold individuals accountable for the full scope of their criminal conduct during a burglary incident, rather than allowing one charge to absorb or negate another.
These scenarios demonstrate that a single unlawful entry can spiral into multiple criminal charges, each carrying its own potential for conviction and punishment. The presence of § 609.585 means that defense strategies must address each alleged offense individually, as a conviction on one does not preclude conviction on others arising from the same overall event.
Example: Burglary and Theft in a Minneapolis Residence
An individual unlawfully enters a home in a Minneapolis neighborhood by forcing open a locked door, intending to find items of value. Once inside, the individual locates and takes jewelry, electronics, and cash. Under Minnesota law, this person could be charged with burglary (for the unlawful entry with intent to commit a crime, or for committing a crime therein) and also with theft (for unlawfully taking the property of another). Pursuant to § 609.585, a conviction for the burglary would not prevent a separate conviction and sentence for the theft of the items, allowing for cumulative penalties reflecting both the invasion of the home and the loss of property.
Example: Burglary and Assault in an Occupied St. Paul Dwelling
Someone breaks into an occupied apartment in St. Paul. During the course of the burglary, they are confronted by a resident. A physical altercation ensues, and the resident suffers bodily harm. In this situation, the intruder could face charges for first-degree burglary (due to entering an occupied dwelling and/or committing an assault therein) and a separate charge for assault (e.g., third-degree assault if substantial bodily harm occurs, or fifth-degree assault for lesser harm). Minnesota Statute § 609.585 allows the court to convict and sentence the individual for both the burglary and the distinct crime of assault, recognizing the separate harms caused by the unlawful entry and the physical violence against the occupant.
Example: Burglary and Criminal Damage to Property at a Hennepin County Business
An individual breaks into a commercial establishment in Hennepin County after hours by smashing a window. Their primary intent might be to steal, but in the process of searching for valuables or out of frustration, they intentionally damage expensive computer equipment and office furniture. This conduct could lead to a charge of burglary (for the unlawful entry with intent) and a separate charge of criminal damage to property. Thanks to § 609.585, a conviction for burglary does not bar a conviction and sentence for the criminal damage to property, ensuring accountability for both the illegal entry and the destruction of assets.
Example: Burglary with Multiple Underlying Offenses at a Ramsey County Store
A person unlawfully enters a retail store in Ramsey County by disabling the alarm system. Inside, they proceed to steal merchandise (theft). When a late-working employee discovers them, the person threatens the employee with a knife to facilitate their escape with the stolen goods (aggravated robbery or assault). In this complex scenario, § 609.585 permits the prosecution to charge and seek convictions for burglary (the unlawful entry), and also for the aggravated robbery (which itself involves theft and the threat of force/assault). The burglary conviction would not prevent conviction and punishment for the very serious crime of robbery, highlighting the statute’s role in addressing multifaceted criminal episodes.
Challenging Multiple Charges in Minnesota Burglary Cases: A Strategic Approach
When an individual is accused of burglary and other offenses committed during that incident, the application of Minnesota Statute § 609.585 means they face the prospect of multiple convictions and cumulative punishments. While this statute allows for such outcomes, it does not diminish the prosecution’s fundamental burden: to prove every element of each alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. For those facing these compounded charges in the Twin Cities area, including Minneapolis, St. Paul, and counties like Dakota or Washington, a robust and multifaceted defense strategy is absolutely essential. The possibility of separate convictions underscores the need to meticulously challenge each charge independently.
An effective defense in these situations requires a comprehensive understanding of not only the burglary statute (§ 609.582) but also the statutes governing any other alleged crimes (e.g., theft, assault, criminal damage to property). It involves a thorough investigation of the facts, scrutiny of the evidence for each charge, and the identification of all available legal defenses. The goal is to dismantle the prosecution’s case on as many fronts as possible, thereby reducing the overall legal exposure. Even if § 609.585 permits multiple convictions, a strong defense can lead to acquittals on some charges, conviction on lesser offenses, or more favorable sentencing outcomes.
Attacking the Elements of the Underlying Burglary Charge
The foundation of the state’s ability to use § 609.585 often rests on securing a burglary conviction. If the burglary charge itself can be successfully defended, it significantly alters the landscape, even if other charges remain. Defense efforts will focus on the core elements of burglary: unlawful entry, lack of consent, and criminal intent.
- No Unlawful Entry or Lack of Consent: Evidence might demonstrate that the accused had permission to be in the building, or a reasonable belief that they had such permission. Perhaps the entry did not meet the legal definition of “entry” into a “building” as defined by statute. Challenging this element can defeat the burglary charge outright.
- Absence of Criminal Intent for Burglary: Burglary requires that the entry was made with the intent to commit a crime therein (or that a crime was committed after entry). The defense can argue that no such criminal intent existed at the time of entry, or that any subsequent act did not rise to the level of the crime required for the specific degree of burglary charged.
Vigorously Defending Against Each Additional Criminal Charge
Since § 609.585 allows for separate convictions, each additional crime charged alongside the burglary must be defended with the same rigor as the burglary charge itself. This means independently analyzing and challenging the elements of any alleged theft, assault, property damage, or other offenses.
- Challenging Theft Elements: If theft is charged, defenses could include lack of intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, a claim of right to the property, or disputes over the valuation of the property (which affects the severity of the theft charge).
- Asserting Defenses to Assault Charges: If assault is alleged, defenses such as self-defense, defense of others, or lack of intent to cause fear or harm might be applicable, depending on the specific facts. The nature and extent of any alleged injury would also be scrutinized.
- Contesting Other Offenses: For any other crime charged, such as criminal damage to property, the defense would focus on its specific elements, such as whether the damage was intentional, the value of the damage, or whether the accused was responsible for it.
Sentencing Advocacy: Arguing Against Consecutive Sentences
Even if convictions on multiple charges occur, a critical phase of the defense involves sentencing advocacy. While § 609.585 permits separate punishments and can lead to consecutive sentences, the defense can still argue for concurrent sentencing or other forms of leniency.
- Single Behavioral Incident Argument (with Nuance): While § 609.585 is an exception to the general rule of Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (limiting punishment for a single behavioral incident), defense counsel can still present arguments to the court that the offenses, while legally distinct, were part of a closely related course of conduct. This might persuade a judge, in their discretion, to impose concurrent sentences or a less severe overall punishment.
- Presentation of Mitigating Factors: The defense should present all available mitigating factors concerning the defendant’s background, character, role in the offense, amenability to probation, or any other circumstances that might warrant a more lenient sentence or a departure from presumptive guidelines if applicable.
Strategic Plea Negotiations to Minimize Overall Exposure
Given the potential for multiple convictions and stacked sentences under § 609.585, strategic plea negotiations become exceptionally important. An experienced attorney can engage with the prosecution to explore resolutions that minimize the number of convictions or the severity of the overall punishment.
- Negotiating for Dismissal of Certain Charges: Counsel may be able to negotiate for a plea to the most serious offense (or a reduced version of it) in exchange for the dismissal of other related charges, thereby limiting the number of convictions on the defendant’s record.
- Seeking a Global Plea Agreement with a Sentencing Cap: The defense can work towards a global plea agreement that resolves all pending charges with an agreed-upon cap on the total sentence, providing certainty and potentially avoiding the harshest possible outcome of consecutive sentences after trial.
Minnesota’s § 609.585 and Double Jeopardy: Your Questions Answered
When facing burglary charges coupled with other alleged offenses in Minnesota, questions about double jeopardy and the impact of statutes like § 609.585 are common. This section addresses frequently asked questions to provide clarity for individuals in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding Hennepin and Ramsey County areas.
What is the basic principle of double jeopardy?
Double jeopardy is a legal protection found in the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. It generally prevents an individual from being prosecuted twice for the same offense after an acquittal, prosecuted twice for the same offense after a conviction, or receiving multiple punishments for the same single offense.
How does Minnesota Statute § 609.585 relate to double jeopardy in burglary cases?
Minnesota Statute § 609.585 clarifies that a prosecution or conviction for burglary does not prevent a separate conviction and punishment for any other crime committed when entering or while inside the burgled building. Essentially, it establishes that for these purposes, burglary and the other crime(s) are not considered the “same offense” such that one would bar the other.
Can I be convicted of both burglary and theft for the same incident in Minneapolis?
Yes. Under § 609.585, if you unlawfully enter a building in Minneapolis (burglary) and also steal property from within that building (theft), you can be separately convicted and sentenced for both the burglary and the theft.
If I’m charged with burglary and assault in St. Paul, can I face penalties for both?
Yes. If the elements of both burglary (e.g., unlawful entry into a St. Paul dwelling) and assault (e.g., harming an occupant) are proven, § 609.585 allows for separate convictions and punishments for each distinct crime.
Does § 609.585 mean I’m being punished twice for the exact same wrongful act?
Not exactly. The law views the act of burglary (the unlawful entry with criminal intent) as a distinct societal harm separate from the harm caused by another crime committed inside (like theft or assault). While they may occur during the same criminal episode, they involve different criminal elements and victimize in different ways, justifying separate accountability.
What is the main purpose of Minnesota Statute § 609.585?
The primary purpose is to ensure that individuals can be held fully accountable for all distinct criminal acts committed during a burglary. It prevents a situation where a conviction for burglary might inadvertently shield someone from facing consequences for other serious crimes they perpetrated at the same time.
Are there any common exceptions or limitations to how § 609.585 is applied?
The statute itself is quite clear in its allowance for multiple convictions. Defenses would typically focus on disproving the elements of the burglary itself or the elements of the other alleged crimes, rather than arguing that § 609.585 doesn’t apply if both crimes were indeed committed.
How does § 609.585 interact with Minnesota Statute § 609.035, which addresses punishing a single behavioral incident?
Minnesota Statute § 609.035 generally limits punishment to a single sentence when a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense and was part of a “single behavioral incident.” However, § 609.585 acts as a specific legislative exception to this general rule in the context of burglary, expressly permitting separate punishment for burglary and other crimes committed during it.
If the burglary charge is dismissed in my Hennepin County case, can I still be convicted of the other crime(s)?
Yes. If the burglary charge is dismissed or you are acquitted of burglary, you can still be prosecuted and convicted for any other distinct crimes (e.g., theft, assault) allegedly committed, provided the state can prove the elements of those other crimes independently. The failure of the burglary charge does not automatically negate other valid charges.
What if I am acquitted of the burglary after a trial? Can I still be tried for the theft that allegedly happened inside?
Yes, potentially. Acquittal on the burglary charge means the state failed to prove all elements of burglary. If the theft charge has different elements that can be proven independently, a separate prosecution for theft might still be permissible under double jeopardy principles, as they would not be considered the “same offense.” Section 609.585 reinforces that they are distinct.
Does § 609.585 apply to all degrees of burglary defined in Minnesota law?
Yes, the language of § 609.585 refers to “the crime of burglary” generally, so it applies regardless of whether the charge is for first, second, third, or fourth-degree burglary.
Is it possible for sentences for burglary and another crime to run consecutively in Ramsey County due to this statute?
Yes. Because § 609.585 allows for separate punishment, a judge in Ramsey County or elsewhere in Minnesota has the discretion to order that the sentence for a crime committed during a burglary run consecutively (one after the other) to the sentence for the burglary itself, potentially resulting in a longer total period of incarceration.
How does having multiple convictions from one incident, as allowed by § 609.585, affect my criminal record?
Having multiple convictions (e.g., felony burglary and felony theft) arising from a single incident makes your criminal record appear more serious than a single conviction would. This can have more significant negative impacts on future employment, housing, and other opportunities. It also typically results in a higher criminal history score for future sentencing purposes.
If the other crime committed during the burglary is only a misdemeanor, does § 609.585 still permit separate conviction and punishment?
Yes. The statute refers to “any other crime committed on entering or while in the building entered.” This would include misdemeanors as well as gross misdemeanors and felonies. You could be convicted of felony burglary and also convicted and sentenced for a misdemeanor theft or assault that occurred during the burglary.
How can a criminal defense attorney help if I’m facing multiple charges in a burglary case involving § 609.585?
An attorney can analyze the applicability of § 609.585, develop strategies to defend against each individual charge (burglary and any associated crimes), challenge the evidence, negotiate with the prosecution for a potential reduction or dismissal of some charges, and advocate for the most lenient sentencing possible, including arguing for concurrent rather than consecutive sentences if multiple convictions occur.
The Amplified Long-Term Impact of Multiple Convictions Under § 609.585 in Minnesota
The operation of Minnesota Statute § 609.585, by allowing for separate convictions for burglary and any crimes committed contemporaneously, can significantly amplify the long-term negative consequences for an individual. While any single felony conviction carries substantial lifelong implications, facing multiple convictions stemming from what might be perceived as a single event can create an even more challenging path forward. These compounded effects are felt acutely by residents in the Twin Cities area and across Minnesota.
Severely Compromised Criminal Record and Public Perception
When a background check reveals multiple convictions—for instance, for both burglary and assault, or burglary and felony theft—arising from one incident, it paints a more severe picture of criminality than a single conviction might. Prospective employers, landlords, and licensing bodies in Minneapolis or St. Paul may view this pattern as indicative of more serious or multifaceted criminal behavior. This can lead to increased difficulty in overcoming the stigma associated with a criminal past, as the record itself appears more extensive and potentially more alarming, regardless of the proximity in time of the offenses.
Greater Hurdles in Securing Employment in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Market
The competitive job market in the Twin Cities can be particularly unforgiving for individuals with criminal records. Multiple convictions, even from a single incident as permitted by § 609.585, can make the job search exponentially harder. Employers may be less willing to consider an applicant with, for example, both a property crime (burglary) and a person crime (assault) on their record. Explaining the circumstances becomes more complex, and the perceived risk to the employer may be heightened, leading to fewer opportunities and potentially a lifetime of underemployment or difficulty finding stable work.
Enhanced Impact on Civil Rights and Future Opportunities
While a single felony conviction typically results in the loss of certain civil rights, such as the right to possess firearms, multiple felony convictions can make the prospect of ever restoring those rights even more remote. Furthermore, the accumulation of convictions can create more significant barriers to obtaining certain professional licenses, pursuing higher education, or even volunteering in some capacities. The sheer weight of a record with multiple offenses can close doors that might have remained slightly ajar with only a single conviction, profoundly limiting an individual’s future pathways.
Harsher Future Sentencing Due to Increased Criminal History Score
One of the most direct and mathematically certain long-term impacts of multiple convictions under § 609.585 is the effect on an individual’s criminal history score under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Each felony conviction adds points to this score. If a person is convicted of both burglary and another felony committed during that burglary, their criminal history score will be higher than if they were only convicted of one. This means that if they are ever convicted of another felony in the future, the presumptive sentence they face will be substantially more severe, potentially leading to much longer periods of incarceration for any subsequent offenses.
Why Skilled Legal Representation is Essential When § 609.585 Complicates Your Twin Cities Burglary Case
When Minnesota Statute § 609.585 is a factor in a burglary case, allowing for multiple convictions and punishments, the complexity of the legal challenge escalates significantly. Individuals accused of burglary along with other offenses committed during the incident face a heightened risk of severe and cumulative penalties. In such circumstances, securing skilled and knowledgeable legal representation in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, including Hennepin and Ramsey counties, is not just advisable—it is critical for navigating the intricacies of the law and protecting one’s rights and future.
Analyzing Complex Interactions Between Charges and Statutory Provisions
An attorney experienced with Minnesota criminal law can thoroughly analyze the interplay between the burglary charge and any accompanying charges in light of § 609.585. This involves understanding how this statute interacts with other legal principles, such as those governing lesser included offenses (§ 609.04) or the general rule regarding punishment for a single behavioral incident (§ 609.035). Counsel can determine the precise legal implications for the specific facts of the case, identifying how the prosecution is likely to leverage § 609.585 and what arguments can be made to counter its harshest potential applications. This detailed legal analysis forms the bedrock of a sound defense strategy when facing multiple potential convictions.
Developing Comprehensive Defense Strategies for Multiple Allegations
Because § 609.585 permits separate convictions, the defense cannot focus solely on the burglary charge. A comprehensive strategy must be developed to address each alleged offense—burglary, theft, assault, property damage, etc.—as a distinct legal battle. This requires a meticulous examination of the evidence for each count, identifying weaknesses, challenging prosecutorial interpretations, and asserting all available defenses specific to each crime. An attorney’s ability to manage and execute a multi-front defense is crucial when the state has the authority to pursue convictions on several charges arising from the same overall event in Twin Cities courts.
Strategic Negotiation with Prosecutors in Light of § 609.585’s Impact
The prospect of multiple convictions and potentially consecutive sentences under § 609.585 significantly raises the stakes in plea negotiations. Knowledgeable legal counsel can use their understanding of the law and the local prosecutorial environment in Hennepin or Ramsey County to negotiate effectively. This may involve seeking the dismissal of some charges in exchange for a plea on others, arguing for a plea to lesser offenses, or working towards a global settlement that provides a clear cap on the total sentencing exposure, thereby mitigating the risk of the most severe cumulative penalties that § 609.585 might otherwise allow.
Vigorous Advocacy at Sentencing to Mitigate Cumulative Penalties
Should multiple convictions occur, the role of legal counsel remains vital at the sentencing phase. An attorney can present compelling arguments to the court advocating for concurrent sentences rather than consecutive ones, even though § 609.585 permits the latter. This involves highlighting any mitigating circumstances, the defendant’s background, the interconnectedness of the offenses (despite their legal separability), and the principles of proportionality in sentencing. Effective advocacy can persuade a judge to exercise discretion in a way that results in a more lenient overall punishment, lessening the potentially crushing weight of stacked sentences that this statute can facilitate.