is without merit. On its face, the statute is limited to declaring what will happen in a case if a trial court fails to specify whether multiple sentences are concurrent or consecutive. See Minn.Stat. § 609.15. Specifically, the statute provides that if a trial court does not state whether two or more sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively, the sentences shall run concurrently. Id. The only question left, then, is whether the pronounced consecutive sentences are commensurate with appellant’s culpability or unfairly exaggerate the appellant’s criminality. Time after time this court has affirmed consecutive sentences for multiple murders committed during one event within this state. See Wilson, 539 N.W.2d at 246; see also State v. Jobe, 486 N.W.2d 407, 421, n.5 (Minn.1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Ouk, 516 N.W.2d 180, 186 (Minn.1994)
holding that the state courts affirmance of two consecutive 25yearstolife sentences for petty theft was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts holding that the federal constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to decisions to impose consecutive sentences holding that a prisoner serving consecutive sentences is in custody under any one of them for purposes of  2241 holding that consecutive sentences could be appropriate for appellant who stabbed two people to death one being a 2½yearold child