Minnesota Supreme Court, 1982

State v. Vogelpohl

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided November 24, 1982 · Amdahl

326 N.W.2d 635; 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1852 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender and Lawrence Hammerling, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R.T. Rodenberg, County Atty., New Ulm, for respondent.

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 2014, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Anderson (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
Ronald James Kettle v. State of Minnesota (Minn. Ct. App. 2014)
Holmes v. State (Minn. 1989)
State v. Dircks (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
State v. Hanson (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
State v. Stephani (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

*636 AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of second-degree murder based on a guilty plea. The appeal raises only the sentencing issue, specifically, whether the trial court erred in imposing a sentence of 180 months when the presumptive sentence for this offense (severity level X) by a person with defendant’s criminal history score (zero) is 116 (111-121) months in prison. We affirm.

It would serve no useful purpose to summarize in detail the facts leading to the prosecution of defendant. The defendant committed the crime in a particularly cruel way, hitting the victim on the head at least eight times with two different hammers and then stuffing her mouth with paper so that he would not have to listen to her dying sounds. Our examination of the record satisfies us that the sentencing court’s reliance upon this aggravating factor supports its deviation from the presumptive sentence. Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, II.D.2.b(2) (1982). Because of this conclusion, there is no need for us to consider the validity or applicability of the other aggravating factors relied upon by the sentencing court. No issue is raised as to the scope of departure, the sentence being within the general limit of double the presumptive duration established in State v. Evans, 311 N.W.2d 481 (Minn. 1981).

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.