876 N.W.2d 350
Minn. Ct. App.2016Background
- Daniel Drljic pleaded guilty to first-degree aggravated robbery in January 2015 in exchange for dismissal of other charges and an agreed 88‑month prison term.
- Sentencing worksheet used by the court assigned Drljic a criminal‑history score of 4: three felony burglary convictions from 2011 plus one custody‑status point for being on probation at the time of the 2014 offense.
- The three prior burglary convictions stemmed from events on December 9, 2009: burglaries of an art studio, an adjacent liquor store (entered after breaking through a wall), and a coffee house (entered after breaking a sealed door); each business had a separate address and owner.
- Drljic argued on appeal that the three 2011 burglary convictions arose from a single behavioral incident, so under Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1.d(2) only two of the prior convictions should count toward his criminal‑history score.
- The district court sentenced Drljic to the 88‑month presumptive term based on the criminal‑history score of 4; on appeal the question was whether counting all three prior burglaries was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the three 2011 burglary convictions arose from a single behavioral incident under Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1.d(2) | Drljic: The three burglaries were one behavioral incident (same building, contemporaneous), so only two prior convictions should count | State: The burglaries had divisible intentions/motivations and separate victims, so all three convictions properly count | The court held the burglaries were not a single behavioral incident; all three convictions properly counted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maurstad, 733 N.W.2d 141 (Minn. 2007) (criminal‑history score errors may be reviewed on appeal)
- State v. Stillday, 646 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (standard of review for criminal‑history score: abuse of discretion)
- State v. Gould, 562 N.W.2d 518 (Minn. 1997) (factors for single behavioral incident: time, place, and single criminal objective)
- State v. Jones, 848 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 2014) (broad criminal purpose does not unify separate acts)
- Langdon v. State, 375 N.W.2d 474 (Minn. 1985) (single overall objective across similar targets can support treating multiple offenses as one behavioral incident)