Legal Opinion

State v. Sargent

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 18, 1984No. C5-84-455, C7-84-456, C9-84-457, C0-84-458, C2-84-459, C9-84-460PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WOZNIAK, Judge.

This is a consolidated appeal challenging appellant’s sentence. Appellant claims the trial court could not order restitution as a condition for staying fines, and simultaneously execute prison sentences. Appellant also claims the trial court erred in denying his request for execution of three prior probationary sentences when it later executed four concurrent sentences. We affirm as modified.

FACTS

Appellant was on probation for aggravated forgery and theft offenses committed in 1980, and for theft committed in 1981.

In 1983, appellant burglarized four businesses, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. RandolphSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  2. State v. MooreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
  3. State v. OttSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  4. State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  5. State v. WentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. BurdickCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  2. Foster v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  3. Raddatz v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  4. State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert SchwartzCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API