State v. Cerceo
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. 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Larson (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
- State v. Cates (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
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
OPINION
Defendant was found guilty by a district court jury of assault with a dangerous weapon, Minn.Stat. § 609.222 (1982). The presumptive sentence at the time was an executed term of 54 months in prison pursuant to, section 609.11 and Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary II.E. (1982). Defense counsel urged the trial court to sentence him without regard to section 609.11, State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1982), but the court refused and imposed the presumptive sentence. On this appeal, defendant seeks (1) an outright reversal of his conviction or a modification of it to misdemeanor assault on the ground that the state failed to prove him guilty of assault in the second degree, or (2) a modification of his sentence because the trial court erred in refusing to sentence him without regard to section 609.11. There is no merit to either contention. Defendant’s conviction was based on evidence that on November 26, 1982, he entered the Northome branch office of Koochiching County Family Services and, while armed with a gun, told a social worker there that he came to the office to kill him and brought along the gun to use to do it. This evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The decision whether to sentence without regard to the mandatory minimum term law is a discretionary decision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to either place defendant on probation or impose a shorter term. State v. Johnson, 342 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. 1984); State v. Frost, 342 N.W.2d 317 (Minn. 1983); State v. Abeyta, 336 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. 1983).
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.