From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Biederstedt

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Apr 30, 1985
367 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. C8-85-394.

April 30, 1985.

Appeal from the District Court, Kandiyohi County, John C. Lindstrom, J.

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Michael Q. Lynch, Kandiyohi Co. Atty., Willmar, for appellant.

Timothy S. Johnson, Willmar, for respondent.

Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and FORSBERG and LESLIE, JJ., with oral argument waived.


SUMMARY OPINION


FACTS

Respondent John Biederstedt pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, Minn.Stat. § 609.245 (1982), of a convenience store in Willmar, Minnesota. In State v. Ritt, 363 N.W.2d 908 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), this court upheld the dispositional departure of Biederstedt's accomplice in that same offense.

DECISION

The trial court based its departure on Biederstedt's amenability to probation. As in Ritt, the record supports our determination that the court did not abuse its discretion in its departure. See State v. Olson, 325 N.W.2d 13 (Minn. 1982); State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1982).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Biederstedt

Minnesota Court of Appeals
Apr 30, 1985
367 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

State v. Biederstedt

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. John David BIEDERSTEDT, Respondent

Court:Minnesota Court of Appeals

Date published: Apr 30, 1985

Citations

367 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

State v. Wenthold

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines II.D.103. Amenability to probation also has been considered grounds for…

State v. Staten

In general, those are the qualities which indicate whether a defendant has a chance for honest rehabilitation…