Cited by

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.” (

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.”

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

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.”

” (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).

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.”

See State v. Trog , ( holding that a defendant’s age was relevant to whether a downward dispositional departure was appropriate).

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 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

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.”

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.”

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.

“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

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 , ).

“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

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.”

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.”

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

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).

The district court may consider the defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog

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.”

“[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

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation so as to justify a downward dispositional departure, a district court may consider, among oth er 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 considering whether to grant a dispositional departure, the district court may consider the d efendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog

See State v. Trog , , 31 (Minn. 1982) (listing factors courts may consider when *56 determining whether defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including defendant's age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends); see also State v. Heywood , , 244 (Minn. 1983) (stati

See State v. Trog , (listing factors courts may consider when determining whether defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in 13 court, and support of family and friends); (st

In considering whether to grant a dispositional departure, the district court must consider the defendant ’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog

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 determinati on whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).

In determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probati on, district courts consider 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.”

at 310 (d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)).