Cited by

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

571 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Larry Ray House Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Mitigating factors that district courts may consider when determining whether to grant a downward dispositional departure include “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his 23 attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The relevant factors in assessing amenability 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. Abdullahi Abshir Abdullahi Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Luis Alejandro Esteban Esquivel Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Catherine Ann Skavlem-Short Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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, h[er] prior record, h[er] remorse, h[er] cooperation, h[er] attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. John Paul Raymond Bye Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court may order a downward dispositional departure upon a determination that the offender is “particular[ly] amenab[l]e to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Michael Knoll Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Several 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. Nicholas James Bunes Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Soto, d at 308 (d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Calvin Edward Bartz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Carl Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.
State of Minnesota v. Weston Marshal Voeltz Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Allen Owens, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Paul Kuklok Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Mark Allen Lacek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Edward Garrett Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Isaiah Antoine James Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. George Jerry Matlock Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Cha NMN Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure when a defendant is “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert Anthony Winston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[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.” .
State of Minnesota v. Collin Charles Koerner Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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
State of Minnesota v. Kelsey Anne Weidell Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Mrozek Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Junior McCall Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Brandon John Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
State of Minnesota v. Ramon Cantu Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Todd Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
Dean Robert Hoversten v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Ajoko Gaye Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Scott Adams, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Paul Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Gary Lee Kies Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alejandro Mejia-Bonilla Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(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).
State of Minnesota v. Julian Leon Hooks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(discussing factors for determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation).
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Virnig Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Angela Marie Edge Minn. Ct. App. 2023
attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Allison Wesley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Peter Jay Engen Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Lee Griffith Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Herman Wheeler Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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, ).
State of Minnesota v. Tashawn Antionette Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Dejahn Akeem Wiley-Hunt Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Xanth Tyler Wilkins v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Among other things, a downward dispositional departure may be based on a defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Charles Kalvoda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Jason Michael Slattum Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Suavay Pierre Sidney Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Rolando Banda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Fahid Nazir Minn. Ct. App. 2022
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).