Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984

State v. Milbrad

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided October 12, 1984 · Amdahl

355 N.W.2d 706; 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1487 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Stephen W. Cooper, Neighborhood Justice Center, St. Paul, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Thomas Foley, Steven C. DeCoster, 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.

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

8 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Rasinski (Minn. Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Schmidt (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Weber (Minn. 1991)
State v. Rasinski (Minn. 1991)
State v. Sheppheard (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
State v. Martin (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Hill (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
State v. Stanger (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

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the district court refusing to allow a criminal defendant to refuse probation and insist on execution of a stayed 18-month prison term. We reverse and remand.

On July 28, 1982, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of a two-count complaint charging him with the burglaries of two different rooms in a St. Paul hotel. The presumptive sentence for the offense in question (a severity level IV offense) by a person with defendant’s criminal history score (two) is 18 months stayed. The trial court sentenced defendant to 18 months, stayed execution of the sentence and ordered defendant to serve 1 year of probationary jail time.

Subsequently, defendant moved for an order executing the sentence. The trial court refused to order defendant’s sentence executed, although the court did reduce defendant’s probationary jail time to 8 months, and directed that defendant receive time off for good behavior and credit for any time he had spent in jail while the charges against him were pending.

We reverse the trial court’s order. Under State v. Randolph, 316 N.W.2d 508 (Minn. 1982), defendant had a right to refuse probation and insist on execution of his sentence. See also State v. Murto, 316 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1982), State v. Smith, 316 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. 1982), and State v. Wilwert, 317 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1982). As in Murto, Smith, Wilwert, and Randolph, we remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to allow defendant to refuse probation and insist on execution of the sentence.

Defendant may, however, upon reconsideration, decide against insisting on execution of his sentence. One of the key facts which apparently motivated defendant to refuse probation was the knowledge that if he violated probation and was sentenced to *707 prison, he would not receive any credit for probationary jail time. The Sentencing Guidelines Commission has changed Section III.C., effective November 1, 1983, to require that probationary jail time be credited against time served in prison following a revocation of probation. The practical effect of this change will surely be to reduce the incentive for one such as defendant to insist on execution of sentence.

Reversed and remanded.

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