Cited by

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

as authority that the factors he lists favor a lower guidelines sentence.

We explained that (1) mere amenability (as opposed to particular amenability) to probation does not justify departure, and the district court neither found Gramentz particularly amenable to probation nor made findings addressing the factors articulated in State v. Trog, 3 (2) the “perceived effect of a prison sentence on a victim is not an offender-related characteristic” and therefore not a valid departure basis; and (3) probationary conditions cannot independently support a sentencing departur

To determine whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider the Trog factors, including an individual’s “age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends or family.” ().

It then provided a detailed explanation for its decision not to depart and analyzed the factors under State v. Trog, which are relevant to determining whether “a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

When evaluating a defendant’s particular amenability “to individualized treatment in a probationary setting,” district courts look to “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

In State v. Trog, the supreme court stated that “numerous factors” are relevant to determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including “the defendant’s age, his prior record, h is remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

He asserted that Steffano was particularly amenable to probation based on the factors set forth in State v. Trog , (Trog factors).

1 (articulating nonexclusive list of factors district courts may consider when deciding whether to impose a downward departure).

In evaluating a motion for a downward dispositional departure, the district court may consider “[n]umerous factors, including the defendant’s age, [] prior record, [] remorse, [] cooperation, [] 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.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).

including her age, lack of prior criminal history, amenability to sex-offender treatment, family support, and remorse, supported a downward dispositional departure.

Id.; see State v. Trog , , 31 (Minn. 1982) (setting forth factors relevant to whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation and stating 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

“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.”

State v. Trog sets forth several factors for evaluating whether the 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.”

e focus is on “several factors that can be relevant to determining if 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 5 family.’” ().

Factors that may indicate an offender’s particular amenability to probation include his “age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

We are not led to a different conclusion by Chavers’s

“Numerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of his 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).

Dispositional Departure A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure based on a defendant ’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” .

Several factors bear on the determination whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, and they 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.”

Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 4 2.D.3.a(7) (2022).