Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wright, 310 N.W.2d 461.

82 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Johnson relies on State v. Wright, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining “that the chance[s] that [the] defendant [would] mend his ways and that society’s interests [would] be safeguarded [were] better if the probationary treatment approach [was] followed.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In considering a motion for dispositional departure, the district court typically focuses on whether a defendant’s characteristics show that the defendant is “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A district court may also consider whether a “defendant is particularly unamenable to incarceration and particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A downward dispositional departure may be based on a determination that the defendant is “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A downward dispositional departure may be based on a determination that the defendant is “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Jill Marie Zetterwall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jill Marie Zetterwall Minn. Ct. App. 2024
3 In evaluating a motion for a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence, a district court considers whether the defendant is “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
As support, -63 (Minn. 1981), which recognized that unamenability to prison may justify a downward departure to a probationary sentence.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In the Matter of the Welfare of: H.B., Child. Minn. 2022
We have recognized that sometimes the factors listed in the sentencing guidelines do not fit a specific case and that “the list is nonexclusive.” (affirming a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines for first-degree arson based on the fourth factor in Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Grunwald argues he is “particularly unamenable to incarceration” because of his age and poor health, which has some support in caselaw.1 d 461, 462 (Minn. 1981) (determining a defendant was “particularly unamenable to incarceration” when the defendant had a “unique” psychiatric condition that would lead to the defendant being “abused seriously if he were in some type of correctional institution”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A dispositional departure typically focuses on characteristics of the offender that show whether they are “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Wright , see also State v. Trog , (citing the “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of frie nds and/or family” as relevant factors that may justify a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” (citing the “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family ” as relevant factors that may justify a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(discussing motivation to change); (discussing unamenability to prison).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Wright , -63 (Minn. 1981) (affirming a district court’s dispositional departure because a defendant was particularly vulnerable in the prison setting); see also Solberg , d at 624 ( recognizing the holding in Wright as addressing factors for dispositional departures).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wright , 62-63 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Particular amenability to probation was first recognized as a
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Trog , State v. Wright
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Wright , see also State v. Trog , (citing the “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, hi s cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of his friends and/or family” a s relevant factors that may justify a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Dispositional departures may rest on the defendant’s characteristics that show he is “particularly suitable for individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (emphasis added) ( see also Soto, 855 N.W .2d at 308–09 (emphasizing the need for particular amenability to probation, not just amenability to probation, to establish a substantial and compelling reason to depart).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
To be sure, we have held that “a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.” (emphasis added)
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Wells v. State 839 N.W.2d 775 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Allen 706 N.W.2d 40 Minn. 2005
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bertsch 689 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Sheppard 587 N.W.2d 53 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(providing list of factors to supplement Wright ⅛ dispositional departure system).
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Yanez 469 N.W.2d 452 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Wittman 461 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Wittman 461 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(when justifying disposi-tional departure, the trial court can focus on defendant as an individual and on whether presumptive sentence is good for him and for society; trial court’s reliance on defendant’s amenability to probation and no prior criminal history, was proper); (downward dispositional departure upheld where defendant with no prior criminal history was particularly unamenable to incarceration and particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting).
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lewis 385 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Van Ruler 378 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1985