Cited by

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider, among other things, “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

Johnson’s arguments do not merit reversal of the sentence.2 1 (explaining that “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting”).

with the charged offenses and (2) by considering factors that were unrelated to the charged offenses in denying his motion 1 (explaining that “[n]umerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a p

Particular Amenability to Treatment “[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.”

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation so as to justify a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider, among other things, “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

“[A] defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in 5 the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”

“[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.”

Although remorse may generally be relevant to a downward dispositional departure, it does not justify a downward durational departure “unless a defendant can show that his demonstrated remorse is directly related to the criminal conduct at issue and made that conduct significantly less serious than the typical conduct underlying the offense of conviction.” Solberg, d a

(articulating factors now referred to as “Trog factors”).

see Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3 (listing nonexclusive factors that may be reasons for departure).

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation , a district court may consider, among other things, “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his 11 remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

The supreme court has recognized factors that may be relevant to a district court’s determination of whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, “including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

The district court addressed the factors identified in State v. Trog as relevant to its determination of whether Stone was “particularly suitable for individualized treatment in the probation setting.”

When determining whether particular amenability to probation exists, a district court may consider the following factors: “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

“Numerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3 (2022).

In the interim, Itoka filed a motion for a downward dispositional departure

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation so as to justify a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider, among other things, “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

See State v. Trog , (identifying a “defendant ’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, [and] his attitude while in court” as factors that “are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting ”); see also Minn. Sent’g Guide

attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

At a March 2024 plea hearing, Mayry entered straight guilty pleas to both counts.1 The state agreed that the counts “would merge for sentencing.” Following the plea hearing, Mayry filed a motion for a downward dispositional departure, (Trog factors).

Carlson’s counsel moved for a downward dispositional departure, (Trog factors).

“Numerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior 8 record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog