Cited by

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

561 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Chaz Jacobi Beckman Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Peter Clare Hoagland Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kim Ronnie Blatcher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Ervin Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Soto, d at 308 (emphasis omitted) (d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A district court may grant a downward dispositional departure if a defendant has a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court “ha[s] held that ‘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.’” Soto, d at 308 ().
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Abigail Rae Trulson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that offender-related factors, such as amenability to treatment or probation, age, and cooperation, may be considered when imposing a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ain evidence that Thao is particularly amenable to probation, so that the district court abused its discretion by ordering a downward departure.2 Typically, a defendant’s amenability to probation is demonstrated by 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. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 882 N.W.2d 618 Minn. 2016
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.” State v. Wright, 310 (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. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Soto, d at 308 ( (emphasis omitted)).
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota, (A15-1247), (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley, (A15-1247), (A15-1255). A15-1247 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that offender-related factors, such as amenability to treatment or probation, remorse, age, and cooperation, are considered when imposing a dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As support for a dispositional departure, a defendant must show “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” Soto, d at 308 (emphasis omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Duane Meredith Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Scott Schmitz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A downward dispositional departure in the form of a stayed sentence with probationary terms may be justified because of the “defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Anthony Hebert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Anthony Hebert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
3 A district court may impose a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive guidelines sentence if a defendant has a “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Christopher Desjarlais Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Christopher Desjarlais Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(considering, among other things, defendant’s prior record and remorse as factors relevant to motion for downward dispositional departure).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2016
As support for a dispositional departure, a defendant must show “particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.” (emphasis omitted)
State of Minnesota v. Yatarrie Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Yatarrie Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(listing “remorse” among factors that show an offender’s amenability to probation).