From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Murto

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 12, 1982
316 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1982)

Opinion

No. 82-170.

March 12, 1982.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hyam Segell, Judge.

Michael F. Cromett, St. Paul, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Foley, County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


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.


Summaries of

State v. Murto

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 12, 1982
316 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1982)
Case details for

State v. Murto

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mark Paul MURTO, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Mar 12, 1982

Citations

316 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1982)

Citing Cases

State v. Rasinski

See State v. Milbrad, 355 N.W.2d 706, 706 (Minn. 1984); State v. Murto, 316 N.W.2d 739, 740 (Minn. 1982);…

State v. Wesenberg

1982); State v. Smith, 316 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 1982); State v. Murto, 316 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1982); and State v.…