State v. Lugo-Diaz

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Lugo-Diaz

348 N.W.2d 79, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1355

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 18, 1984

DocketNo. C6-83-51

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 348 N.W.2d 79 (State v. Lugo-Diaz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lugo-Diaz, 348 N.W.2d 79, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1355 (Mich. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of making a terroristic threat against his former girlfriend and assaulting her with a dangerous weapon. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.11, 609.222 and 609.713, subd. 1 (1982). The presumptive sentence was 54 months in prison pursuant to the mandatory minimum term law. Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982). See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). The trial court imposed and executed this sentence, denying a defense motion to depart and sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum term law pursuant to State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn.1982). On appeal, defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, which was overwhelming, but claims that the trial court erred in failing to order a continuance so that defendant could try to obtain substitute counsel and in denying his motion to depart from the presumptive sentence. We affirm.

1. There is no merit to the contention that the court erred in failing to order the [80]*80continuance. Defendant did not inform the, court of his dissatisfaction with his attorney, who is from the Neighborhood Justice Center, until the day that the case came on for trial. There was no excuse for the delay in making the request and defendant did not present any information to suggest that his attorney would not represent him effectively. On appeal defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to grant the continuance. We hold that the court did not err in its ruling. State v. Beveridge, 277 N.W.2d 198 (Minn.1979).

2. Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to depart is answered by the following decisions of this court: State v. Johnson, 342 N.W.2d 635 (Minn.1984); State v. Frost, 342 N.W.2d 317 (Minn.1983); State v. Abeyta, 336 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.1983).¹

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of making a terroristic threat against his former girlfriend and assaulting her with a dangerous weapon. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.11, 609.222 and 609.713, subd. 1 (1982). The presumptive sentence was 54 months in prison pursuant to the mandatory minimum term law. Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982). See Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.E. (1982). The trial court imposed and executed this sentence, denying a defense motion to depart and sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum term law pursuant to State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn.1982). On appeal, defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, which was overwhelming, but claims that the trial court erred in failing to order a continuance so that defendant could try to obtain substitute counsel and in denying his motion to depart from the presumptive sentence. We affirm.

1. There is no merit to the contention that the court erred in failing to order the [80]*80continuance. Defendant did not inform the, court of his dissatisfaction with his attorney, who is from the Neighborhood Justice Center, until the day that the case came on for trial. There was no excuse for the delay in making the request and defendant did not present any information to suggest that his attorney would not represent him effectively. On appeal defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced by the court’s failure to grant the continuance. We hold that the court did not err in its ruling. State v. Beveridge, 277 N.W.2d 198 (Minn.1979).

2. Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to depart is answered by the following decisions of this court: State v. Johnson, 342 N.W.2d 635 (Minn.1984); State v. Frost, 342 N.W.2d 317 (Minn.1983); State v. Abeyta, 336 N.W.2d 264 (Minn.1983).¹

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

348 N.W.2d 79, 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lugo-diaz-minn-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack