Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28.

561 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roger Darnell Webb Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A defendant’s amenability to probation, in turn, depends on a number of factors, which can include “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “a defendant’s particular unamenability to probation will justify departure in the form of an execution of a presumptively stayed sentence”).
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Johnathan Richard Beying Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(discussing mitigating sentencing factors).
State of Minnesota v. LaQuinn Jamul Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(listing amenability to probation as among factors that may justify a downward departure); (requiring the district court to “deliberately consider[]” mitigating factors before rejecting a motion for a downward departure).
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tyrece Curtis Matthews Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A departure from the guidelines in the form of a stay of execution of a sentence may be justified by a “defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kanishka Shereal Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lashun Theodits Witherspoon Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Tawnja Rene Wallace Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gary Michael Veesenmeyer-Trojanowski Minn. Ct. App. 2014
2 Factors that may show that a defendant is amenable to probation include: “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
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. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Pegel 795 N.W.2d 251 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(noting factors such as defendant’s age, remorse, and support of friends and family as factors justifying dispositional departure).
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Abrahamson 758 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
P. 9.01 simply as “prior records”); (noting that a defendant’s “prior record” is used to determine his criminal history score); (referring to a lack of criminal history as a “clean record”).
State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
State v. Kebaso 713 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
State v. Bertsch 707 N.W.2d 660 Minn. 2006
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. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that a defendant’s particular amenability to probation or treatment will justify dispositional departure).
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that a defendant’s particular amenability to probation or treatment will justify dispositional departure).
State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Hickman 666 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
The supreme court has identified a non-exclusive list of factors as relevant to amenability to probation, those being “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
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. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. DeShay 645 N.W.2d 185 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Gebeck 635 N.W.2d 385 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001