State v. Ritt
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1999, among the opinions in this site’s citation index. Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Donnay (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)
- State v. Staten (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- State v. Biederstedt (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUMMARY OPINION
FACTS
Respondent Chris Alan Ritt pleaded guilty to aiding John Biederstedt in an aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. §§ 609.245, 609.05, subd. 1 (1982), of a convenience store in Willmar, Minnesota. Biederstedt pointed a pistol at the attendant while Ritt placed the money into a bag.
The trial court departed dispositionally and stayed execution and imposition of sentence both from the sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and from the mandatory minimum sentence of Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982). The probation conditions included (1) 90 days in jail, (2) 400 hours community service, (3) 140 hours voluntary time at St. Cloud Correctional Institute, (4) direct apology to the manager of the store which was robbed, and (5) placement under “house arrest” for fall and winter quarters at St. Cloud State, which Ritt was attending.
DECISION
The trial court based its departure on Ritt’s “amenability to probation.” The record shows this was Ritt’s first offense, he was and is attending St. Cloud State, he had no juvenile record, he has an intact family supporting him, and his prospects for contributing to the community are considerable. The probation officer who prepared the presentence investigation report recommended probation. Under the authority of State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1982), and State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d *909 28, 31 (Minn. 1982), we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in its disposi-tional departure.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.