This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-1830
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
vs.
Carl Raba, Appellant.
Filed January 11, 2016 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded Halbrooks, Judge
Cass County District Court File No. 11-CR-13-2128
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Christopher J. Strandlie, Cass County Attorney, Walker, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Sharon E. Jacks, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
HALBROOKS, Judge
Appellant Carl Raba raises several issues on appeal. First, he challenges the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress items found in the course of his arrest.
Second, Raba contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his
convictions of ineligible person in possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled
substance. Third, Raba argues that he was improperly sentenced on the firearms
convictions because the exception in Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3 (2012), does not
apply here.
Because Raba had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, we conclude that the
district court did not err by denying Raba’s motion to suppress items that were found
when the arrest occurred. We also conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
Raba’s convictions of ineligible person in possession of a firearm but that the evidence
was insufficient to support the conviction of possession of a controlled substance.
Finally, because Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3 does not permit imposition of multiple
sentences for ineligible-person-in-possession-of-a-firearm convictions that derive from a
single behavioral incident, we conclude that the district court erred in sentencing Raba.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions of ineligible person in possession of a firearm,
reverse the conviction of possession of a controlled substance, and remand for re-
sentencing.
2 FACTS
On November 13, 2013, Investigator Tony Cyr of the Cass County Sheriff’s
Office received a report that a woman with an outstanding felony drug warrant was
staying on property in Wilderness Park that was T.S.’s residence. Investigator Cyr
dispatched Sergeant Jason Brogle and Deputy Charles Ratz to the location. The two
officers arrived at the property in separate vehicles around 5:30 p.m. As Sgt. Brogle
drove up to the property, he observed a man standing outside of a 24-foot, pull-behind
camper. Sgt. Brogle could see the man’s face because a halogen work light illuminated
the area where the man was standing. The man appeared to look directly at Sgt. Brogle
and then quickly turned and ran toward the camper. He entered the camper and locked
the door. The officers knocked on the camper door and announced that they were
looking for a woman with an outstanding felony drug warrant who was reportedly on the
property. After no response, the officers started knocking on the windows and the sides
of the camper.
While still outside of the camper, the officers attempted to identify the man.
Deputy Ratz noticed a motorcycle nearby and ran the license plate through the
registration system. As a result, the officers determined that it was registered to Raba,
who had three active warrants (including a felony warrant) for his arrest. After viewing a
photograph from the state’s database, Sgt. Brogle identified Raba as the individual who
had run into the camper.
The officers returned to the camper and resumed knocking on the door, warning
Raba that if he did not come out, they would force their way in. After no response, the
3 officers located a crowbar in a nearby truck and forced the door open. They found Raba
sitting on a bed behind a blanket that divided the camper into two areas. A Ruger 10/22
rifle was resting on the bed within arms-length of where Raba was sitting. Deputy Ratz
arrested and handcuffed Raba. At that point, the officers believed that the woman they
were originally looking for was still present in the camper. Accordingly, Deputy Ratz
moved some clothing stacked next to the bed. In so doing, he found two more firearms—
a Browning .270 and a Stevens .22. When they patted down Raba, the officers found
bullets in his pockets that matched each of the weapons.
While still inside, the officers observed what appeared to be drug paraphernalia
and what they thought was a small amount of methamphetamine in an open sunglasseses
case on the kitchen table.1 The officers seized the firearms, the methamphetamine, and
the drug paraphernalia and left the camper. They did not find the woman during the
initial search.
The officers ran a database search of the license plate and vehicle-identification
number on the camper and learned that both the license plate and the camper had been
reported as stolen. The officers also observed two four-wheelers on the property. When
they ran a database search of the vehicle-identification numbers, they discovered that
both had been recently reported as stolen. At that point, the officers contacted
Investigator Cyr and requested that he obtain a search warrant for the property. A
1 The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension later tested the substance and confirmed that it was methamphetamine.
4 daytime warrant was issued that was executed by police the following morning. In the
interim, a deputy secured the property to ensure that no one entered or left the camper.
When the police executed the search warrant and entered the camper the following
morning, they found the woman with the outstanding felony drug warrant sitting at the
kitchen table. They arrested her and also found two more firearms—a pistol and a rifle.
The police searched Raba’s 1998 Dodge pickup that was parked outside of the
camper. Inside the vehicle, one of the officers found an empty box for a Ruger revolver
and an instruction manual for that weapon. The box matched the pistol that was found in
the camper. The officer also found ammunition in the pickup that matched the Ruger
10/22 rifle and the .270 Browning.
Raba had a previous conviction of a crime of violence that made him ineligible to
possess a firearm. As a result, the state charged him with four counts of ineligible person
in possession of a firearm based on possession of the Browning .270, Ruger 10/22 rifle,
Stevens .22 rifle, and the pistol. Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2012). Raba was also
charged with one count of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, four counts
of possession of stolen property, and one count of terroristic threats. Before trial, the
district court ordered the terroristic-threats charge to be severed from the complaint, and
dismissed three of the four counts of receiving stolen property.
At the omnibus hearing, Raba contested the legality of the officers’ entry into the
camper. He argued that the police can enter a dwelling to pursue a suspect for an arrest
only when (1) it is the suspect’s home and (2) there is reason to believe that the suspect is
inside. In the absence of those conditions, the police need consent or another exception
5 to the warrant requirement to justify the intrusion. The state responded by arguing that
the officers could enter the camper—even if it was not Raba’s residence—to make a
felony arrest if they had reason to believe that Raba was inside. It also argued that
because Raba’s expectation of privacy in the stolen camper was not reasonable, he lacked
standing to object to the search. The district court denied Raba’s motion to suppress the
evidence found at the time of Raba’s arrest.
Raba was convicted of four counts of ineligible person in possession of a firearm,
one count of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, and one count of receipt of
stolen property. Before sentencing, Raba argued that he should be sentenced for only one
count of ineligible person in possession of a firearm because all four ineligible-person
convictions were part of a single behavioral incident and that the exception under Minn.
Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3, does not apply to separate sentences for possession-of-a-firearm
charges. The district court disagreed and sentenced Raba to 60 concurrent months in
prison for each of the four firearm convictions in addition to the sentences imposed for
the other convictions. This appeal follows.
DECISION
I.
Raba argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the
evidence found in the camper at the time of his arrest because, although there was an
outstanding warrant for his arrest, the police did not have reason to believe that he resided
there. Therefore, he asserts that the exception to the warrant requirement articulated by
the Supreme Court in Payton v. New York does not apply. 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S. Ct.
6 1371, 1388 (1980). The state contends that if Raba resided in the camper, the search
would have been justified under Payton. Further, the state argues that Raba cannot assert
greater privacy rights than a person who lived in the camper could have. Thus, the entry
to execute the arrest warrant was justified.
At the outset, we note that the record does not indicate who resided in the camper
or the details of how or why Raba was there. But it is undisputed that (1) there was an
outstanding felony arrest warrant for Raba at the time of the forced entrance into the
camper, (2) the two responding officers knew about the warrant prior to entering, and
(3) the police had reason to believe Raba was inside the camper, having observed him
running into it. Based on this record, we conclude that the entry and limited subsequent
search were justified.
“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may
independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district
court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris, 590
N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999). Both the “Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution,” prohibit unreasonable searches and
seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. A warrantless search is
generally unreasonable, unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the
warrant requirement. State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007). “All
evidence obtained by illegal searches is inadmissible in court and the fruits of a
warrantless entry made without probable cause and [an exception to the warrant
7 requirement] must be suppressed.” In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565, 578 (Minn.
2003) (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1691 (1961)).
One exception to the warrant requirement exists for entry into a dwelling when the
police have a valid arrest warrant. Payton, 445 U.S. at 603, 100 S. Ct. at 1388. In
Payton, the New York police “assembled sufficient evidence to establish probable cause
to believe that Theodore Payton had murdered the manager of a gas station two days
earlier.” Id. at 576, 100 S. Ct. at 1375. They went to his apartment without a warrant
intending to arrest him. Id. When Payton did not answer the door after the police
knocked, they used crowbars to force entry. Id. No one was there, but the police did
locate a .30-caliber shell casing that was later used at trial to convict him. Id. at 576-77,
100 S. Ct. at 1375. Payton challenged the legality of the entry into the apartment. Id. at
577, 100 S. Ct. at 1375.
The New York Court of Appeals upheld the search based on the substantial
difference in the degree of intrusiveness associated with entry for purposes of making an
arrest versus entry to search the premises. Id. at 579-80, 100 S. Ct. at 1376.
The Supreme Court reversed, recognizing that the objective of a police officer
entering a home to execute a search is different from entering a home to execute an
arrest, but stating that the “difference may be more theoretical than real.” Id. at 589, 100
S. Ct. at 1381. The Supreme Court held that although an arrest warrant may afford less
protection than a search warrant, “it will suffice to interpose the magistrate’s
determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen” to protect
the person’s privacy interests. Id. at 602, 100 S. Ct. at 1388. “Thus, for Fourth
8 Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries
with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is
reason to believe the suspect is within.” Id. at 603, 100 S. Ct. at 1388.
The following term, the Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether
law enforcement “may legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a
third party without first obtaining a search warrant.” Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S.
204, 205, 101 S. Ct. 1642, 1644 (1981). In Steagald, a confidential informant provided
an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with a phone number to find
Ricky Lyons—a federal fugitive with an outstanding arrest warrant. Id. at 206, 101 S. Ct.
at 1644. The DEA traced the phone number to a house where Steagald resided. Id.
Looking for Lyons, the DEA went to the house to execute the arrest warrant. Id. at
206-07, 101 S. Ct. at 1644-45. Without obtaining a search warrant and without consent
of the person who answered the door, the DEA entered the home and saw what appeared
to be cocaine. Id. Lyons was not present. Id. Based on the initial observation, the DEA
obtained a search warrant and found 43 pounds of cocaine. Id. The DEA arrested and
indicted Steagald. Id. at 207, 101 S. Ct. at 1645. Steagald sought to “suppress all
evidence uncovered during the various searches on the ground that it was illegally
obtained because the agents had failed to secure a search warrant before entering the
house.” Id.
The Supreme Court stated that “while an arrest warrant and a search warrant both
serve to subject the probable-cause determination of police to judicial review, the
interests protected by the two warrants differ.” Id. at 212-13, 101 S. Ct. at 1648. “An
9 arrest warrant . . . primarily serves to protect an individual from an unreasonable seizure.”
Id. at 213, 101 S. Ct. at 1648. “A search warrant . . . safeguards an individual’s interest
in the privacy of his home and possessions against the unjustified intrusion of the police.”
Id. “[W]hile the warrant in this case may have protected Lyons from an unreasonable
seizure, it did absolutely nothing to protect [Steagald’s] interest in being free from an
unreasonable invasion and search of his home.” Id. Therefore, “the search of
[Steagald’s] home was no more reasonable from [Steagald’s] perspective than it would
have been if conducted in the absence of any warrant.” Id. at 216, 101 S. Ct. at 1650.
Raba relies on Steagald to argue that the officers needed reason to believe that he
lived in the camper in order to enter to arrest him. We disagree. In Steagald, the
Supreme Court focused on the rights of the resident, Steagald, when the police did not
have either an arrest warrant for him or a separate search warrant for the home. Id. at
216, 101 S. Ct. at 1649-50. Here, there is no third party challenging entry. Raba himself
is. Raba’s interest, like Payton’s, was in being free from an unreasonable seizure. The
constitutional concern for Raba’s interest was satisfied by the probable-cause
determination for the outstanding felony arrest warrant.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Steagald does not control the
outcome when the defendant (1) does not live in the residence, (2) has a felony warrant
out for his arrest, and (3) the police have reason to believe the defendant is within the
residence. In United States v. Clifford, the defendant claimed that because he was a guest
in another’s home, the police had to obtain a separate search warrant to enter the home to
arrest him. 664 F.2d 1090, 1092 (8th Cir. 1981). The Eighth Circuit disagreed, stating,
10 “Steagald provides no basis for [Clifford’s] challenge to the police entry.” Id. Under
Payton, the police could have entered the home to execute an arrest warrant for the
defendant if they had reason to believe that he was inside. Id. at 1093. “Clifford hardly
can claim greater rights in [the occupant’s] home than [the occupant] herself possessed.”
Id. The Eighth Circuit reiterated this principle eight years later in United States v.
Kaylor: “[A person] cannot claim any greater Fourth Amendment protection in
[another’s] home than he possessed in his own home.” 877 F.2d 658, 663 (8th Cir.
1989). Thus, “possession of a warrant for Kaylor’s arrest and the officers’ reasonable
belief of his presence in [another’s] home justified the entry without a search warrant.”
Id.
Here, the officers who responded to the initial call knew that Raba had an
outstanding felony warrant prior to attempting to arrest him. One of the officers
identified Raba as the person standing outside of the camper who ran inside. If Raba
resided in the camper, the entry was justified under Payton. If he did not reside there, he
cannot claim greater Fourth Amendment privacy rights than an occupant could.
Therefore, we conclude that the entry was justified and that the district court did not err
by denying Raba’s motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the officers’ entry
into the camper.
II.
Raba argues that the state presented insufficient evidence at trial to support his
convictions of the four counts of ineligible person in possession of a firearm and one
count of possession of a controlled substance. “When considering a claim of insufficient
11 evidence, this court conducts a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether
the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to
allow the jurors to reach a verdict of guilty.” State v. Porte, 832 N.W.2d 303, 307 (Minn.
App. 2013) (quotation omitted). “We must assume that the jury believed the state’s
witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[W]e
will not disturb the verdict if the jury, acting with due regard for the presumption of
innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably
conclude that the defendant was guilty of the charged offense.” State v. Ortega, 813
N.W.2d 86, 100 (Minn. 2012).
The state concedes that the convictions depended on circumstantial evidence. If a
conviction depends on circumstantial evidence, this court applies a two-step heightened
standard to evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d 320,
329-30 (Minn. 2010). “First, we identify the circumstances proved” while deferring to
the “jury’s acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the
record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the State.” Porte, 832 N.W.2d at
310 (quotations omitted). “Second, we examine independently the reasonableness of all
inferences that might be drawn from the circumstances proved, including inferences
consistent with a hypothesis other than guilt.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Circumstantial
evidence supporting a conviction must be consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any
rational hypothesis except that of guilt.” Id. (quotations omitted). The chain formed by
the circumstantial evidence must be complete, in view of the evidence as a whole, and
lead “directly to the guilt of the defendant as to exclude beyond a reasonable doubt any
12 reasonable inference other than guilt.” State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn.
2010). We do not overturn verdicts based on “mere conjecture.” State v. Stein, 776
N.W.2d 709, 714 (Minn. 2010).
“Possession of a firearm may be proved through actual or constructive
possession.” State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Minn. 2015). The same is true for
possession of a controlled substance. Porte, 832 N.W.2d at 308. Neither party claims
that the evidence showed that Raba had actual possession of either the firearms or the
drugs. Instead, both parties focus on constructive possession. To prove constructive
possession, the state
must show either (1) that the prohibited item was found in a place under defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access, or (2) if the prohibited item was found in a place to which others had access, there is a strong probability (inferable from other evidence) that defendant was at the time consciously exercising dominion and control over it.
Salyers, 858 N.W.2d at 159 (quotations omitted); see also Porte, 832 N.W.2d at 308.
“Proximity is an important factor in establishing constructive possession.” State v.
Breaux, 620 N.W.2d 326, 334 (Minn. App. 2001). “Furthermore, an item that is
constructively possessed may be possessed by more than one person.” Porte, 832
N.W.2d at 308.
The state argues that the evidence was sufficient to show that there was a strong
probability that Raba at the time consciously exercised dominion over the firearms and
the methamphetamine. We therefore focus our analysis on whether the evidence was
13 sufficient to demonstrate a strong probability that Raba consciously exercised dominion
over the items.
A. The Firearms
1. Count 1, possession of Browning .270.
The Browning .270 was one of two rifles found beneath a stack of clothes next to
the bed Raba was sitting on. Both Sgt. Brogle and Deputy Ratz testified that in the
course of the post-arrest pat-down search of Raba’s pockets, they found .270 ammunition
that was usable in the Browning. Investigator Cyr testified that he found .270
ammunition when he searched Raba’s truck the following morning. Given Raba’s close
proximity to the Browning .270 when he was arrested, coupled with the fact that
ammunition for that gun was found in his pockets and truck, the reasonable and rational
hypothesis is that there is a strong probability that Raba was consciously exercising
dominion over it (i.e., he possessed it). We therefore conclude that the evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to convict him of count 1 of ineligible person in
possession of a firearm.
2. Count 2, possession of Ruger 10/22 rifle
Both Sgt. Brogle and Deputy Ratz testified that the Ruger 10/22 was lying on the
bed within Raba’s arm’s reach when he was found. They stated that some of the
ammunition that they found in his pockets during the pat-down was also usable in the
Ruger 10/22. Further, Investigator Cyr testified that he found .22-caliber ammunition in
Raba’s truck that was usable in the Ruger 10/22. The only reasonable and rational
14 hypothesis is that Raba possessed the Ruger 10/22. The evidence at trial was sufficient to
convict him of count 2 of ineligible person in possession of a firearm.
3. Count 3, possession of Stevens .22
The state presented similar evidence for the Stevens .22 as it did for the
Browning .270. Both Sgt. Brogle and Deputy Ratz testified that they found the weapon
in the stack of clothes next to the bed that Raba was sitting on. They also stated that they
found ammunition that could be used in the rifle both in Raba’s pockets and in his truck.
The only reasonable inference is that he possessed the firearm. The evidence at trial was
sufficient to convict him of count 3 of ineligible person in possession of a firearm.
4. Count 4, possession of Ruger pistol
The Ruger pistol was not located during the initial search of the camper. But
Deputy Scott Rollins testified that he was posted outside of the camper all night and was
certain that no one had entered or left the camper. The following morning when the
officers executed the search warrant, they found the Ruger pistol and the woman they
originally were searching for. Whether or not the woman also possessed the pistol, the
pistol was tied to Raba by the testimony of Sgt. Brogle and Deputy Ratz that the previous
night they found ammunition in Raba’s pockets and in his truck that could be used in the
pistol. In addition, when Investigator Cyr searched Raba’s truck, he found the box and
instructions for the pistol. The location of the gun box in his truck combined with the
ammunition in his pocket eliminates any reasonable hypothesis other than that Raba
possessed the firearm either individually or jointly with the woman. We therefore
15 conclude that the state presented sufficient evidence to support a conviction of count 4 of
ineligible person in possession of a firearm.
B. The Controlled Substance
Sgt. Brogle and Deputy Ratz seized the methamphetamine at the time that they
arrested Raba. At trial, the state entered into evidence a photograph of the sunglasses
case where the methamphetamine and pipe were found. That photograph depicted a
small amount of methamphetamine in a plastic bag and in the pipe. Both Sgt. Brogle and
Deputy Ratz testified that the sunglasses case was on the kitchen table in the camper. But
the pipe was not tested for DNA or fingerprints and there was no evidence at trial tying
Raba directly to the drugs.
On this record, there is a reasonable and rational hypothesis that does not support
guilt. The police found a single pipe with a minimal amount of methamphetamine left
inside of it. The state failed to tie Raba to the drugs or the drug paraphernalia other than
by the mere fact that they were in the camper when Raba was arrested. But the woman
was also in the camper. Such minimal ties do not support only one reasonable and
rational hypothesis of guilt. Instead, the circumstances support a reasonable inference
that the woman may have possessed the items. We therefore conclude that the state did
not present sufficient evidence to support Raba’s conviction of fifth-degree possession of
a controlled substance. That conviction is reversed.
III.
The district court imposed four concurrent 60-month sentences for the four firearm
convictions. Raba argues that the district court erred because the four convictions arose
16 out of a single behavioral incident. The state concedes that the offenses occurred during
a single behavioral incident, but contends that the statutory exception for firearm offenses
in Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3, permits multiple sentences for ineligible-person-in-
possession-of-a-firearm convictions even if they occur as part of a single behavioral
incident. Section 609.035 provides:
[I]f a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them. . . .
....
. . . [A] prosecution for or conviction of a violation of section 609.165 or 624.713, subdivision 1, clause (2), is not a bar to conviction of or punishment for any other crime committed by the defendant as part of the same conduct.
Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subds. 1, 3 (2012).
Statutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v.
Koenig, 666 N.W.2d 366, 372 (Minn. 2003). Resolution of this issue turns on the phrase
“any other crime” in Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3. While the phrase has not been
addressed in the context of Minn. Stat. § 609.035 (2012), the Minnesota Supreme Court
interpreted the same phrase in the context of the burglary exception to the single-
behavioral-incident rule. See State v. Holmes, 778 N.W.2d 336, 340-41 (Minn. 2010)
(interpreting Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2008)).
The question before the supreme court was whether Holmes was properly
sentenced for his convictions of aiding and abetting first-degree burglary with assault and
aiding and abetting third-degree assault. Id. at 338. It was undisputed that both
17 convictions arose from a single behavioral incident. Id. at 339. The supreme court stated
that “Minnesota law generally prohibits a person from being punished twice for conduct
that is part of the same behavioral incident, with certain exceptions.” Id.
Minn. Stat. § 609.585 (2012), addressing the crime of burglary, contains an
exception to the general prohibition against multiple sentences that contains the “any
other crime” language that appears in Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3. In Holmes, the
supreme court stated:
We read the statute to allow a conviction of another crime committed in the same course of conduct as the burglary, provided that the statutory elements of that crime are different than the crime of burglary. The phrase “any other crime” means a crime that requires proof of different statutory elements than the crime of burglary.
Id. at 341.
Because the elements of the crimes of which Holmes was convicted were not
identical, the supreme court held that Holmes could be convicted of and sentenced for
both convictions. Id.
Here, Raba was convicted of four counts of ineligible person in possession of a
firearm that required the state to prove the same elements for each conviction. Therefore,
based on Holmes, the exception in Minn. Stat. § 609.035, subd. 3 is not applicable.
Because we conclude that the district court erred when it sentenced Raba separately on
each conviction of ineligible person in possession of a firearm, we reverse and remand to
the district court for resentencing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.