Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Ostrander
Citations: 383 N.W.2d 723; 1986 Minn. App. LEXIS 4132Docket: No. C6-85-1916
Court: Court of Appeals of Minnesota; March 17, 1986; Minnesota; State Appellate Court
Conrad Ostrander's sentencing appeal challenges the trial court's decision to impose a 39-month prison sentence, which is an upward departure from the presumptive 25-month sentence for his conviction of theft by swindle involving an 89-year-old victim. The victim, Ethel Brand, had paid Ostrander over $34,000 for approximately $3,000 worth of home repairs through 174 checks written between 1981 and 1984. After pleading guilty to the charge under Minnesota Statute 609.52, subd. 2(4), the trial court justified the upward departure based on two primary reasons: the victim's vulnerability due to her advanced age and the significant economic impact of the offense. The decision was supported by precedent, specifically referencing a similar case where a greater departure was upheld. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the upward departure was justified and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.