Cited by

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.”

“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.”

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 v. Trog , State v. Wright

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.

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.”

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

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.”

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 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).

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).

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.”

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

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).

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

“[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.”

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).

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”).

(quoting State v. Trog , (emphasis omitted)).

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 v. Trog , ; (explaining that remorse, or lack thereof, bears on amenability to probation, particularly in sentencing for crimes against a person).

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.”

“[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.”

2 One of the Trog factors is a defendant’s particular suitability to treatment in a probationary setting.

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).

“[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.”

(“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.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Trog , (“[A] D-d at 141 (“[W]e have sought to effectuate the guidelines’ purposes by requiring the district court to utilize the presumptive sentence in the usual case .” (emphasis added)) ; Peake, d at 301 (Minn. 1985) (“

The 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.”

sentencing that “[t]he only mitigating circumstance that I believe is potentially worthy of discussion is whether Mr. Jackson is amenable to probationary supervision.” A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure, staying a presumptively executed sentence, if a defendant has a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”

A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines range if a defendant has a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (requiring a defendant be “particularly” amenable to probation).