Michael A. Hatch, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent)

Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Beverly J. Benson, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Lyonel F. Norris, Assistant State Public Defender, 2829 University Ave. S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge, Davies, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.

Appellant Mario Darrod Hamilton claims that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive four-year executed sentences for his two aggravated robbery convictions. Because imposition of consecutive sentences does not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of appellant's conduct, we affirm.

"Multiple current felony convictions for crimes against persons may be sentenced consecutively to each other." Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.F. "Consecutive sentences may be imposed for crimes against different persons, but the multiple sentences must not unfairly exaggerate the criminality of the defendant's conduct." State v. Smith, 541 N.W.2d 584, 590 (Minn. 1996). The trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences will not be modified "unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Id.

"The court looks to the imposition of sentences in other cases to determine whether [consecutive] sentencing exaggerates the criminality of conduct." State v. Cole, 542 N.W.2d 43, 53 (Minn. 1996). Consecutive sentences are often imposed in multiple-victim aggravated robbery cases. See, e.g., State v. Norris, 428 N.W.2d 61, 70-71 (Minn. 1988) ("In numerous cases involving aggravated robbery, assault, and multiple victims, we have allowed consecutive sentences to stand."); State v. Williams, 337 N.W.2d 387, 389-90 (Minn. 1983) (affirming consecutive sentences in multiple-victim aggravated robbery case); State v. Burgess, 319 N.W.2d 418, 421 (Minn. 1982) (same).

Appellant concedes that the trial court had the discretion to impose consecutive sentences, but argues that the decision to do so in this case unfairly exaggerates the criminality of his conduct. The record, however, supports the trial court's decision to impose consecutive sentences. At trial, the victims each described being robbed at gunpoint by appellant after coming to his house looking for an acquaintance. Appellant threatened to kill the victims if they did not comply with his demands, took their winter coats and approximately $1,000 in cash, and then ordered them to leave the house. Appellant terrorized each victim at gunpoint in a manner that went beyond the basic elements of aggravated robbery.

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing two consecutive four-year sentences for these aggravated robberies.

Affirmed.