Cited by

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

571 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
rog, the 5 Minnesota Supreme Court stated 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 probationary setting.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
cellent candidate for probation.” In State v. Trog, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated 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 probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In doing so, the district court may consider factors such as “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. 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. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
sons existed to grant [his] requested dispositional departure.” Dudley asserts that “this case should be remanded to the district court for a new sentencing hearing for reconsideration of the departure question” because the district court “analyzed the request for a departure without consideration of the Trog factors when the court denied the dispositional departure motion.” the supreme court stated that “a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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