State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones
2014 Minn. LEXIS 317
| Minn. | 2014Background
- Don Antoine Jones sent 33 text messages to his estranged wife S.J. over ~2.5 hours after she obtained an ex parte order for protection; she feared for her safety.
- Jones was charged and convicted in Scott County of stalking (Minn. Stat. § 609.749) and violating an order for protection (Minn. Stat. § 518B.01).
- The district court sentenced Jones on both convictions and ordered the Scott County sentences consecutive to each other and to a 57‑month sentence Jones was already serving.
- The State relied on the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines list (Sec. VI) permitting permissive consecutive sentences for both offenses.
- The court of appeals affirmed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 (single course of conduct / single punishment rule) bars multiple sentences and whether the Guidelines create an exception.
Issues
| Issue | Jones’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stalking and order‑violation convictions arose from a single course of conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 1 | The 33 messages over 2.5 hours at her workplace show a single time/place and single criminal objective (harassment), so only one punishment may be imposed | The conduct spanned time/area and thus is divisible; even if a single course, Guidelines allow consecutive sentences | Held: The text messages constituted a single course of conduct (same time/place/objective); § 609.035 bars separate sentences absent an applicable exception. |
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, subd. 16 (Domestic Abuse Act) creates an exception to § 609.035 permitting separate punishment for violating an order for protection plus other crimes | Jones: § 518B.01, subd. 16 does not speak to criminal prosecutions and thus does not override § 609.035 | State: subdivision 16 makes proceedings under the Domestic Abuse Act in addition to other civil or criminal remedies, implying permissive separate punishment | Held: Subd. 16 refers to procedural proceedings to obtain orders for protection, not criminal prosecutions; it does not create an exception to § 609.035. |
| Whether the Sentencing Guidelines (II.F.2.b and comment II.F.203) permit imposing consecutive sentences despite § 609.035 | Jones: Guidelines govern whether multiple authorized sentences run concurrently or consecutively, but do not authorize multiple sentences when § 609.035 prohibits them | State: Guidelines list both offenses as eligible for permissive consecutive sentences; comment II.F.203 says consecutives are allowed even for single‑victim/single‑course offenses | Held: Guidelines address how multiple sentences (if authorized) are served, not whether multiple sentences may be imposed; § 609.035 controls the number of sentences. Guidelines do not override statute. |
| Remedy | Jones: vacate the sentence for violating the order for protection | State: affirm consecutive sentences | Held: Reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the sentence for violating the order for protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394 (establishes single course of conduct requires unity of time/place and single criminal objective)
- State v. Kendell, 723 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. 2006) (single course analysis is mixed question of law and fact)
- State v. Mullen, 577 N.W.2d 505 (Minn. 1998) (continuous intent to harass over a few hours can be a single criminal objective)
- State v. Ferguson, 808 N.W.2d 586 (Minn. 2012) (judicial exception to § 609.035 for offenses involving multiple victims)
- State v. Shevchuk, 282 Minn. 182 (distinguishes multi‑incident offenses committed at separate times/locations)
- State v. Bookwalter, 541 N.W.2d 290 (Minn. 1995) (separate locations and distinct acts support multiple punishments)
- State v. Kebaso, 713 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 2006) (§ 609.035 contemplates punishment for the most serious offense arising from a single course of conduct)