a stay of imposition, as part of the plea agreement, but objected to providing for a later vacation of the plea and dismissal of the charge. The prosecutor noted that if the plea were later vacated and the charge dismissed, it could not be used to enhance a later offense. See Minn.Stat. § 609.2242, subd. 2 (1998). The district court did not issue a written order giving its reasons for declining to sentence Ohrt. The court did note, in the course of the hearing, that Ohrt had no prior offenses and appeared to be a good risk on probation, that the victim was not seeking a no-contact order, that Ohrt deserved a chance to avoid a criminal record, and that many prosecutors in the county did not object to that type of disposition. The legislature has authorized stays of imposition, bu .1988) (<HOLDING>). The available authority treats a stay of
holding that a prior nonarizona conviction to be used as a prior felony conviction under the statute must both be for an offense that would constitute a felony in arizona and be classified as a felony in the other jurisdiction holding that drug felony under state law can constitute an aggravated felony for federal sentencing guidelines purposes even if the same conduct would not constitute a felony under federal law holding that felony conviction for which imposition of sentence was stayed could be counted as prior felony conviction under sentencing guidelines holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute holding that proof of an agreement to commit a felony is not a necessary element in a conviction for the commission of the felony