State v. Smith

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Smith

316 N.W.2d 562, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1490

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMarch 5, 1982

Docket82-18

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 316 N.W.2d 562 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 316 N.W.2d 562, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1490 (Mich. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

Defendant pled guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, which in his case carried a presumptive sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines of 1 year and 1 day stayed. The trial court imposed the presumptive sentence, stayed execution, and placed defendant on probation for 3 years, the first year to be served in the workhouse. Defendant sought to refuse probation. The trial court indicated that it would be willing to allow this if it had authority to do so, but defense counsel was unable to satisfy the trial court that the court had the requisite authority. This appeal followed. Subsequently, we filed our opinion in State v. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508 (Minn.1982), which controls. As we did in Randolph, we remand. Here, as there, the trial court should be given the opportunity, if it chooses, to reduce the probationary jail time imposed on the defendant, thereby removing much of the incentive for the defendant to insist upon execution of the prison sentence. However, if the 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 unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, which in his case carried a presumptive sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines of 1 year and 1 day stayed. The trial court imposed the presumptive sentence, stayed execution, and placed defendant on probation for 3 years, the first year to be served in the workhouse. Defendant sought to refuse probation. The trial court indicated that it would be willing to allow this if it had authority to do so, but defense counsel was unable to satisfy the trial court that the court had the requisite authority. This appeal followed. Subsequently, we filed our opinion in State v. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508 (Minn.1982), which controls. As we did in Randolph, we remand. Here, as there, the trial court should be given the opportunity, if it chooses, to reduce the probationary jail time imposed on the defendant, thereby removing much of the incentive for the defendant to insist upon execution of the prison sentence. However, if the 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 562, 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-minn-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack