State v. Defatte, 928 N.W.2d 338

In 2009 Defatte assaulted his estranged wife and was convicted in Hubbard County of multiple offenses, including third-degree assault and violating an order for protection (OFP).
Defatte was sentenced on the assault conviction but not on the OFP conviction in the Hubbard County matter.
In 2018 Defatte was charged in Cass County with domestic-assault offenses allegedly occurring within ten years of the Hubbard County convictions; Counts 3 and 4 were charged as felonies under Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 (felony enhancement for prior qualifying convictions).
Defatte moved to strike the felony-enhanced counts, arguing that prior convictions entered the same day (and convictions for which he was not sentenced) could not be used for enhancement, relying in part on Minn. Stat. § 609.035’s prohibition on multiple punishments for the same course of conduct.
The district court granted the motion to strike; the State appealed. The court of appeals reversed, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held Subdivision 4 unambiguous: it looks to prior convictions (not sentences or separate incident dates) and the enhancement was properly applied because Defatte had two prior qualifying convictions and the alleged 2018 offense fell within ten years of the first of those convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minn. Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 4 is ambiguous and whether prior convictions entered the same day (or convictions without sentences) qualify to trigger felony enhancement	Defatte: convictions entered the same day cannot yield a “first” conviction for the ten‑year lookback; only prior convictions that resulted in separate sentences may be used for enhancement	State: statute is unambiguous; enhancement depends on convictions (not sentences or separate dates); two or more prior qualifying convictions satisfy the statute even if entered same day	Court: statute is unambiguous; “first” conviction in a countable series can include convictions entered the same day; enhancement valid because Defatte had two prior qualifying convictions within ten years

Overweg v. State, 922 N.W.2d 179 (Minn. 2019) (standard of review and interpretive guidance)
Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) (statutory ambiguity analysis)
Fleck v. State, 810 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2012) (ambiguous statute defined as having more than one reasonable interpretation)
Prigge v. State, 907 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 2018) (plain and ordinary meaning rule for undefined statutory phrases)
Hayes v. State, 826 N.W.2d 799 (Minn. 2013) (use of ordinary meaning and interpretive principles)
State v. Defatte, 921 N.W.2d 556 (Minn. App. 2018) (court of appeals decision reversing district court and construing subdivision 4 literally)