Cited by

Soto, d at 308 (d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)).

To determine a person’s particular amenability to probation, courts have often considered “[n]umerous factors, including the defendant ’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, hi s attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” .3 In 3 We observe that the Trog factors are often cited as factors for determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation.

Factors to examine when considering a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting 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.”

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.”

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.”

4 In considering whether to grant a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence, a district court may focus on the defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure when a defendant is “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

“[P]articular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting [can] justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.” .

The supreme court has recognized that several factors 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.” State v. Trog

A downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant ’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” see also Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a.(7) (2020).

at 309 (quotation omitted); (listing factors relevant to particular amenability, including age, criminal history, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family).

A downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

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

prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

(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 all factors relevant to whether a dispositional departure is justified).

(discussing factors for determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation).

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

4 In considering whether to grant a dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence, a district court may focus on the defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

A downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

Factors relevant to particular amenability to probation that can justify a downward dispositional departure include the defendant’ s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends or family, to which courts sometimes refer as the “Trog factors.” Soto, d at 310 (quoting State v. 5 Trog, ).

Among other things, a downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

(), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Several factors “are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).

Among other things, a downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

DECISION Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a .

Factors relevant to particular amenability to probation that can justify a dispositional departure include the defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends or family ; courts sometimes refer to these as the “ Trog factors.” Soto, d at 310 ( ).

For a departure to be warranted on this basis, the defendant must be particularly amenable to probation—meaning that “the defendant’s amenability to probation distinguishes the defendant from most others and truly presents the substantial and compelling circumstances that are necessary to justify a departure.” Soto, d at 309 (quotation omitted); (listing factors relevant to particular amenability, including age, criminal history, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of

The “Trog factors” aid the district court in determining particular amenability to probation and include the defendant’s “age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and support of friends or family.” ().