State v. Webber

SUMMARY OPINION

FORSBERG, Judge.

Thomas Webber appeals from a conviction of fourth degree assault and from an order denying a motion to modify his sentence. He contends the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense and that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a stay of execution of sentence rather than a stay of imposition. We affirm.

ISSUES

1. Was there sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was not acting in self-defense?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a stay of imposition of sentence?

ANALYSIS

I.

Appellant was convicted of fourth degree assault in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.2231:

*568

Whoever assaults a peace officer when that officer is effecting a lawful arrest or executing any other duty imposed upon him by law and inflicts demonstrable bodily harm is guilty of a felony * *.

Minn.Stat. § 609.2231 (1984). Appellant admitted at trial that he did assault Officer Clemens. He now contends only that the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.

We are convinced upon reviewing the record that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury.

II.

Webber received a presumptive sentence of one year and one day, with execution stayed. Appellant argues only that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a stay of execution rather than a stay of imposition.

This court has often stated that a sentencing court “has broad discretion and that we generally will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.”

State v. Theisen,

363 N.W.2d 867, 869 (Minn.Ct.App.1985);

see State v. Van Ruler,

378 N.W.2d 77, 80-81 (Minn.Ct.App.1985). We see no compelling reason to interfere with the sentence in this case.

DECISION

There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was not acting in self-defense. The trial court’s choice of a stay of execution of sentence was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.