Cited by

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

571 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Christian Hamzah Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Nicholas Adam Willard v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Trog , -31 (Minn. 1982) (noting that several factors, including a defendant’s remorse, are relevant to determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation for a downward dispositional departure); see also Solberg, d at 625 (stating that “a defendant’s remorse generally does not bear on a dec
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Manuel Valdez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[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 of Minnesota v. Cory Anthony Klingelhoets Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(listing the factors a court should consider when deciding particular amenability).
State of Minnesota v. Dane Michael Vandervoort Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. John Oliver Dybedahl Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court may impose a downwar d dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sent ence if a defendant has a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Roy Luckhardt Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Jefferson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Alize Khudari Perkins Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Michael Guzik Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Joseph Melius Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Terrell Reese Schaeffer Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A district court must focus on the defendant in considering a dispositional departure by analyzing factors such as “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. Levar Randolph Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Anike Tatiaramika Jiles Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider, among other things, “the defendant’s age, [her] prior record, [her] remorse, [her] cooperation, [her] attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Eduardo Delariva-Larios Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Soto, d at 308 (emphasis omitted) (d 28, 31 ( Minn. 1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Aldray Devon Young Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Christy Lynn Tjaden Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The supreme court recognized considerations for an offender’s particular amenability that “includ[e] 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. Robert Alonzo Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
” (citing the “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family ” as relevant factors that may justify a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey George Ackerson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Scott Allen Lipe Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Johnny Clifton Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Factors relevant to determining whether a defendant is suited to treatment in a probationary setting include “the defendant’ s age, his prior re cord, his 4 remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Josi Ann Adelman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Trog , ( holding that a defendant’s age was relevant to whether a downward dispositional departure was appropriate).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Allen Pryatel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
These fact ors, sometimes collo quially called the Trog factors, include 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).
State of Minnesota v. Lawrence Frank Herron Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Chad Joseph Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jamahl Lorenzo Climmons Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Trog identified additional factors that a district court may consider when determining whether a 8 defendant is particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting, 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.”6
Roilan Garriga v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Justin Matthew Girling Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, courts consider a number of factors, which includ e “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.”
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Utto Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Trent Theodore Horning Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Karla Jean Winterfeld Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Duviaze Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Darrell Wayne Brownbull, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Damon Dwight Wiederhoft Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Varlyn Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In State v. Trog , the supreme court outlined w hat factors a district court may consider when determining whether to depart from a presumptive sentence, which 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. Oscar Armando Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2019
While a district court focuses more on the defendant and his particular amenability to “individualized treatment in a probationary setting,” in considering a dispositional-departure request, it may also consider offense-related factors in deciding whether a departure is appropriate.
State of Minnesota v. Myron Lynn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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 determinatio n whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When a district court considers a dispositional departure, the question turns on whether “‘a defendant’s particular amenability to individualize d treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.’” Soto, d at 308 (quoting State v. Trog , ).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Daniel Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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 indi vidualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Shawn James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Bunnell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, courts c onsider a number of factors, often referred to as the Trog factors, which 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. Jason Rudolf Vadner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining particular amenab ility to probation, courts conside r 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. Thomas Robert Tichich Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Particular amenability to probation is a proper ground to support a district court’s departure decision, d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014), and includes consideration of “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, vs, Tyler Paul Wetzel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider the Trog factors: “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” see also State v. Hickman , (applying the Trog factors to particular amenability to probation).
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The district court may consider the defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Thomas Cobb Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To determine whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may 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.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Raymond Kost Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota (A18-1579) (A18-1569) v. William Cornell Walker (A18-1569) (A18-1579) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[A] defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justif y departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.” State v. Trog
Ernesto Torres Garcia v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019