Cited by

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.” ().

(stating that in assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends).

A dispositional departure typically focuses on characteristics of the offender that show whether they are “particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Wright , see also State v. Trog , (citing the “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of frie nds and/or family” as relevant factors that may justify a dispositional departure).

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation so as to ju stify 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.”

To determine whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation

State v. Trog , see also Minn. Sent.

(providing a non- exhaustive list of offender-relate d factors district courts may consider, including the defendant’s age, prio r record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends).

A downward dispositiona l departure may be appropriate if a defendant shows a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (quoting State v. Trog , ).

for a downward dispositional departure.

(stating that, in determining whether to grant a dispositional departure, a di strict court may consider age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends).

In determining whether a dispositional depart ure is justified, courts consider, as relevant here, factors such as the “defendant ’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, [and] his attitude while in court.”

A “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.”

In determining whether a defendant is particul arly amenable to probation, courts may consider various factors, such as “the defendant’s age, his pr ior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).

There are “[n]umerous factors” that may establish a particular amenability t o probation, “including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) .

To determine if an offender is particularly amenable to probation, the district court may consider “[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.”

review denied (Minn. Oct.

See State v. Trog , (stating that a court should consider numerous factors, including the defendant’s “remorse,” when deciding whether to impose a downward dispositional departure).

State v. Trog , (stating that in assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends).

For a departure to be warranted on th is basis, the defendant must be particularly amenable to probatio n—meaning that “the de fendant’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 th e support

In State v. Trog, the supreme court listed several factors that are relevant to whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation: “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remo rse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of his friends and/or family.”

(stating that in assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends).

(stating that in assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends ).

To determine whether a dispositional departure is appropriate, the district c ourt should consider whether the defendant is particularly amenable to probation, analyzing factors relating to the defendant as a person, such as “his age, his prior record, his remorse , his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” see also Solberg, d at 623.

A “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his 11 cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family , are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particular ly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

In determining whether a defendant is particular ly amenable to probation, di strict courts consider “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

“[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.” State v. Trog , (emphasis added); see also Minn. Sent.

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 thin gs, “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”

A “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 determ ination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatm ent in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog