State of Minnesota v. Bryan Blocker, A15-1607

H.B. endured a March 2014 kidnapping and brutal assault by Blocker, including confinement outside the truck and later in the truck, causing extensive injuries.
Blocker previously controlled H.B.’s communications and phone; he arrived at the scene within minutes of H.B. leaving with friends.
Jury convicted Blocker of multiple offenses, including kidnapping and various assaults, and found eight aggravating facts related to the kidnapping.
District court sentenced Blocker to the statutory maximum 480 months for kidnapping after an upward departure, and designated eight aggravating facts as support.
On appeal, Blocker challenges (i) great-bbodily-harm proof during kidnapping, (ii) the eight aggravating facts, (iii) criminal-history-score calculation, (iv) the sentence’s length, and the court remands for correction/recalculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Great bodily harm occurred during kidnapping	Blocker argues great bodily harm was pre-truck only	State asserts harm occurred during kidnapping in truck	Sufficient evidence supports harm during truck kidnapping
Existence of eight aggravating facts	State contends aggravators proven beyond reasonable doubt	Blocker contests some qualifiers as insufficient or overlapping	Eight aggravating facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt
Criminal-history score calculation	State supports five-point score including early offense	Blocker argues score should be three; earlier conviction cannot boost later offense	Remand for correction of criminal-history score and recalculation
Excessive sentence/double departure	State argues substantial justification for departure	Blocker contends no severe aggravating factors to support more-than-double departure	Remand for reconsideration of sentence after correcting history score
Overall treatment of kidnapping sentence	State seeks permissible upward departure to maximum	Blocker claims departure is unlawfully excessive	Remand for reconsideration of the kidnapping sentence

State v. Earl, 702 N.W.2d 711 (Minn. 2005) (confinement must be criminally significant to justify separate sentence)
State v. Budreau, 641 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. 2002) (no requirement for substantial detainment duration or distance)
State v. Smith, 669 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 2003) (momentary confinement not necessarily criminally significant)
State v. Leake, 699 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2005) (overriding considerations for separate sentencing when conduct is distinct)
State v. Fleming, 883 N.W.2d 790 (Minn. 2016) (aggravating factor basis for upward departure; conduct may arise during same course of conduct)
State v. Edwards, 774 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. 2009) (Spaeth overlap allowed if aggravating factor reflects serious conduct in same incident)
State v. Dye, 871 N.W.2d 916 (Minn. App. 2015) (focus on victim’s injury rather than assailant’s actions)
State v. Williams, 337 N.W.2d 387 (Minn. 1983) (direct evidence may prove a fact without inference)