State v. Murto
Cited by
- State v. Rasinski 472 N.W.2d 645 Minn. 1991
- State v. Rasinski 464 N.W.2d 517 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
- Raddatz v. State 355 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Milbrad 355 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 1984
- State v. Burdick 355 N.W.2d 176 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Roesch 349 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Wesenberg 348 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
- State v. Sutherlin 341 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 1983
- State v. Murto 322 N.W.2d 725 Minn. 1982
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Randolph 316 N.W.2d 508
Opinion text
AMDAHL, Chief Justice. Defendant pled guilty to theft over $150, Minn.Stat. § 609.52, subds. 2(1) and 3(2) (1980), which in his case carried a presumptive sentence under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, (1980) of 1 year and 1 day stayed. The trial court imposed the presumptive sentence, stayed execution, and placed defendant on probation for 5 years, the first year to be served in the workhouse. Defendant then unsuccessfully sought to refuse probation. This appeal followed. While the appeal was pending, we filed our opinion in State v. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508 (Minn., 1982), which controls. As we did in Randolph , we remand. On remand the trial court will be given the opportunity to reduce the probationary jail time imposed on the defendant, thereby removing much of the incentive for defendant to insist upon execution of the prison sentence. However, if defendant still insists on refusing probation, the execution of the original prison sentence should be ordered. Remanded.