Minnesota Supreme Court, 1984

State v. Wentz

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 17, 1984 · Amdahl

343 N.W.2d 667; 1984 Minn. LEXIS 1240 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender by Mollie G. Raskind, Deputy State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., R.T. Rodenberg, Brown County Atty. by Clark A. Tuttle, III, Asst. Brown 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 1987, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Cites Minnesota statutes amended since this decision

Minn. Stat. § 609.135 — amended 1985

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. § 609.135

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Raddatz (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Sargent (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. French (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
State v. Harstad (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Chapman (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
State v. Burdick (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Schmidt (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Booth (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)
State v. Craig (Minn. Ct. App. 1984)

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 was found guilty by a jury of a charge of theft over $150, a severity level III offense. The presumptive sentence for the offense by a person with defendant’s criminal history score (four) is an executed prison term of 22 (21-23) months in prison. The trial court sentenced defendant to 22 months in prison, ordered the prison term executed, and fined defendant $500, with execution of the fine being stayed for 5 years following defendant’s release from prison. The conditions of the stay were that defendant abide by the terms of probation and pay $100 to the public defender fund by way of restitution. The court did not order restitution to the victims since defendant already had returned the stolen property to them.

Under the Guidelines the trial court had to choose between imprisoning defendant and placing him on probation. State v. Moore, 340 N.W.2d 671 (Minn. 1983). If the court had placed defendant on probation, the court could have required restitution as a condition of probation. Minn.Stat. § 609.135, subd. 1 (1982). Since the trial court chose to execute the prison sentence, the court could not order restitution, absent some agreement by defendant to make restitution, as in Moore. However, the court’s decision to execute the prison sentence did not prevent the court from fining defendant. The statutes permit, and the Guidelines do not prohibit, the imposition of a fine in addition to imprisonment. Thus, the trial court clearly had the right both to impose a fine and to order execution of the prison sentence. This being so, defendant is not entitled to have the requirement that he pay the fine be vacated.

Affirmed as modified:

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