¶1 SUMMARY OPINION
¶2 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.
¶3 ISSUES
¶4 1. Was there sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was not acting in self-defense?
¶5 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for a stay of imposition of sentence?
¶6 ANALYSIS
¶7 I.
¶8 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 ….
¶9 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.
¶10 We are convinced upon reviewing the record that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury.
¶11 II.
¶12 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.
¶13 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.
¶14 DECISION
¶15 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.
¶16 Affirmed.