consecutively to each other and to the sentence imposed on the first count. The district court did not articulate a reason for imposing the consecutive sentences. This appeal followed. ISSUES I. Did the district court abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences? II. Does appellant’s sentence violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington? ANALYSIS I. Rannow argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences on each of his five convictions of violation of a restraining order. We will not reverse a district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences absent a clear abuse of discretion. Neal v. State, 658 N.W.2d 536, 548 (Minn.2003). But the threshold issue presented here is whether the consecutive sente (<HOLDING>). Rannow pleaded guilty to five felony
holding that under the applicable statutory provisions a person need not be impoverished or devoid of all assets to qualify as an indigent sick person but only that the person be unable to pay for necessary medical care holding a person is not an accomplice if the person knew about the offense and failed to disclose it or helped the accused conceal it holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person holding that the government was to be treated as a private person and a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the agents exceeded their ability to arrest because while a law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant  given probable cause  a private person may only arrest someone for a crime  committed  in his presence