Cited by

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

571 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Anthony Scott David Auginaush Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Johnson Bankole Oluwalowo Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Bauer 932 N.W.2d 47 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
State of Minnesota (A18-0876) (A18-1246) v. Casey Daniel Bauer (A18-0876) (A18-1246) Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
State of Minnesota v. Scott David Quall Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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
State of Minnesota v. Zong Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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).
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Victor Mouchka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
at 310 (d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Wayne Culver Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Juan Andres Gonzalez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In State v. Trog , the supreme court affirmed a downward dispositional departure based, again, on a determination that “a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized 8 treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Martin 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 individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Kent Michael Hamre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Additional pretrial violation 1 The factors that a district court considers in determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation 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. Karl Edward Henze Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Trog , State v. Wright
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jon Schluessler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Substantial and compelling circ umstances justifying a downward dispositional departure include “a defendant’s particular amenability to indi vidualized treatment in a probationary setting.” see also Minn. Sent.
State of Minnesota v. Frank Quintero Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Trog , (listing factors court s may consider when determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, including defendant ’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of family and friends); (stating
State of Minnesota v. Tracy Lynn Bailey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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 fri ends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Tevon Keenan Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Factors relevant to determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation include “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his r emorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Peter Gribovsky Minn. Ct. App. 2019
” State v. Wright , see also State v. Trog , (citing the “defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, hi s cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of his friends and/or family” a s relevant factors that may justify a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Lee Boyum Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Rick William Olsen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Particular Amenability to Probation When determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probati on, relevant factors to consider 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.” Soto, d at 310 () (quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Abdurahman Abdella Mama Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Eli Jermel Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Factors relevant in determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to 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. DeAntae Demond Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Gosch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, vs Phillip Julius Butenhoff, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In determining whether a defendant is particular ly 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 a nd/or family.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Jentzen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Downward dispositional sentencing departure “A dispositional departure typically focuses on characteristics of the defendant that show whether the defendant is particularly suitable for individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” Solberg, d at 623 (quotation omitted); (considering defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in cour t, and support of friends and family as relevant factors for dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2018
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.” State v. Trog
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[A] defendant’s particula r amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presump tively executed sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Jeroy Mister Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. James Dietz Lauck Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The district court also considered the Trog factors, which require the court to consider the defendant’s “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” State v. Trog , ( listing age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in court, and support of friends and/or family as factors relevant to determining whether defendant is particularly amenable to probation).
State of Minnesota v. Severo Perez-Nava Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A defendant’s particular amen ability to probation is demonstrated by such factors 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.’” ( ; further referenced as the “Trog factors”).
State of Minnesota v. Corey Edward Fisherman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quoting State v. Trog , (emphasis omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Robert Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Adam Ryan Lagred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Walker 913 N.W.2d 463 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Trog , , 31 (Minn. 1982) (noting 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 relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly [amenable] to individualized treatment in a probationary *469 setting").
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Ranzy, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Erik Paul Ellingson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Trog , ; (explaining that remorse, or lack thereof, bears on amenability to probation, particularly in sentencing for crimes against a person).
State of Minnesota v. Felix Velasquez Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
rmination that a dispositional departure was warranted because Remley’s offense was “less onerous than usual.” A dispositional 9 Determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation allows the district court to 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. Kevon Dante Vaughn Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Brian Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Yusef Abdi Ali Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Corey Thomas Vener Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Emmanuel Ballard Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[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 presump tively executed sentence.”
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Leslie Pavey Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 One of the Trog factors is a defendant’s particular suitability to treatment in a probationary setting.
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Lynn Lambert Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Trog , (finding that “[n]umerous factors, including t he 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 downward dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Bernard Edwards Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A] defendant’s particular 12 amenability to individualized tr eatment in a probationary setti ng will justify departure in the form of a stay of execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”