Minnesota Supreme Court, 1982

State v. Murto

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided March 12, 1982 · Amdahl

316 N.W.2d 739; 1982 Minn. LEXIS 1501 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Michael F. Cromett, St. Paul, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Foley, County Atty., St. Paul, 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 1991, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.52 — amended 1983

Amendment history from the Minnesota Revisor of Statutes. A later amendment does not necessarily affect this decision's analysis — check the current statute text.

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.

Minn. Stat. § 609.52

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Rasinski (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Rasinski (Minn. 1991)
State v. Burdick (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Milbrad (Minn. 1984)
State v. Roesch (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Wesenberg (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
Raddatz v. State (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Sutherlin (Minn. Ct. App. 1983)
State v. Murto (Minn. 1982)

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

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.

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