State v. Murto

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Murto

316 N.W.2d 739, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1501

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 12, 1982

Docket82-170

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 316 N.W.2d 739 (State v. Murto) 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. Murto, 316 N.W.2d 739, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1501 (Mich. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 N.W.2d 739, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murto-minn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack