State v. Washington, 908 N.W.2d 601

Washington was charged and convicted under Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 5(a) for knowingly failing to register as a predatory offender between June 9, 2013 and August 4, 2015; he waived a jury and was convicted by the district court.
The district court found the offense period was June 9, 2013–August 4, 2015 and sentenced Washington to 27 months, using a criminal-history score that included a 1996 felony (3rd-degree criminal sexual conduct).
Under Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1(c), a prior felony is excluded from criminal-history calculation if 15 years elapsed between its expiration and the "date of the current offense."
Washington argued the "date of the current offense" should be the last day (Aug. 4, 2015) so his 1996 conviction had decayed and could not be counted; he also argued a jury must decide the offense date.
The court of appeals held failure to register is a continuing offense and the relevant date is the start date; the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Washington's Argument	State's Argument	Held
How to determine "the date of the current offense" under Minn. Sent. Guidelines 2.B.1(c) for a continuing crime	The date is the last day of the continuing offense (single day), which would make the 1996 conviction have decayed before the current offense	The date encompasses the entire range of dates for a continuing offense (start through end); guidelines unambiguously apply to the full period	Held: Failure to register is a continuing offense; "the date of the current offense" for a continuing crime comprises the entire period of the offense (court relied on start date for decay analysis)
Whether a jury must decide the offense date for sentencing under the Sixth Amendment (Blakely)	The offense date is an essential sentencing fact and must be submitted to a jury	Washington waived a jury; the court found the offense dates in its verdict, so no additional judicial factfinding occurred	Held: No Blakely violation — the district court already determined the offense period in its verdict; no additional facts were found at sentencing

State v. Bakken, 883 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 2016) (continuing-offense analysis referenced)
State v. Schmid, 859 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. 2015) (statutory interpretation: unambiguous when only one reasonable meaning exists)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the sentence beyond the jury verdict must be admitted or proved to a jury)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (explains limits of judicial factfinding post-Blakely)
State v. DeRosier, 719 N.W.2d 900 (Minn. 2006) (trial court violated Blakely by making sentencing-critical date finding beyond jury verdict)
Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) (discusses when failure-to-register crimes are treated as continuing offenses)