Case Name: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mark Paul MURTO, Appellant
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1982-03-12
Citations: 316 N.W.2d 739
Docket Number: No. 82-170
Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mark Paul MURTO, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 316
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Mark Paul MURTO, Appellant.
No. 82-170.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
March 12, 1982.
Michael F. Cromett, St. Paul, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Foley, County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.

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.