State v. Abeyta
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 2025, 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
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Yant (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- State v. Partosa (Wash. Ct. App. 1985)
- State v. Halverson (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- State of Minnesota v. Bryant Wayne Paige (Minn. Ct. App. 2025)
- State v. Bertsch (Minn. 2006)
- State v. Bertsch (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)
- State v. Quast (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- State v. Lonergan (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
- State v. Stahlberg (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- State v. Johnson (Minn. 1984)
- State v. Cerceo (Minn. 1984)
- State v. Andren (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Propotnik (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Pickett (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Patricelli (Minn. 1984)
- State v. Lugo-Diaz (Minn. 1984)
- State v. Frost (Minn. 1983)
- State v. Back (Minn. 1983)
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
In State v. Abeyta, 328 N.W.2d 443 (Minn. 1983), we affirmed defendant’s conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon, reckless discharge of a firearm, possession of a sawed-off shotgun and possession of brass knuckles, but we remanded for resen-tencing in light of State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1982), because the trial court erroneously concluded that it had no choice under Minn.Stat. § 609.11 (1982) but to sentence defendant to a minimum of 3 years in prison (which translated into a 54-month Guidelines sentence) for the assault conviction. On remand a hearing was held before a different judge, who again sentenced defendant to an executed 54-month prison term for the assault conviction. This appeal followed, with defendant claiming that there were mitigating circumstances present which were so substantial that the trial court on remand erred in refusing to depart dispositionally. We affirm.
We have indicated in a number of cases that ordinarily we will not interfere with a sentence that falls within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or du-rationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure. In State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981), we stated:
Minn.Stat. § 244.11 (1980) permits the appeal in this case and we do not intend entirely to close the door on appeals from refusals to depart. However, we believe that it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart. As we stated in State v. Garcia, 302 N.W.2d 643, 647 (Minn. 1981), the Guidelines state that when substantial and compelling circumstances are present, the judge “may” depart. This means that the trial court has broad discretion and that we generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
Other cases in which we have declined to modify sentences that were within the presumptive sentence range include State v. Brusven, 327 N.W.2d 591 (Minn. 1982), and State v. Kraft, 326 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 1982). We decline the invitation to exercise our discretion and modify defendant’s sentence.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.