Cited by

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

571 citing documents.

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).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathon Michael Honeycutt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Arthur Bell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Soto, d at 308 ( 31 (Minn. 1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Nathan John Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(outlining relevant factors that support a probationary sentence, such as the defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and friend and family support).
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Krystal Elizabeth Alwin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Miles Solberg 869 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that age and cooperation relate to whether a defendant is amenable to probation, a dispositional-departure consideration).
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. John Jay Pederson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
the district court considered the factors relevant to a dispositional departure, such as his amenability to probation, which 10 includes factors such as his “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. Adam Michael Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2015
in explaining its decision that a dispositional departure was not appropriate.
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rodney Joseph Hill Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jack Arnold Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bob Matt Jaschke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 310 (rejecting the district court’s conclusion that the appellant’s age, 37, made him amenable to probation); (listing factors for considering amenability to probation, including age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family).
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Fredrickson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This involves consideration of factors such as, “the defendant’s age, 15 his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Leroy Lamar Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2015
.” (listing “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude 7 while in court, and the support of friends and/or family” as factors “relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualiz
State of Minnesota v. Curtis Wayne Regguinti Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jose Luis Guzman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Doble Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In determining whether a defendant is amenable to probation and appropriate for a dispositional departure, a district court can consider “[n]umerous factors, including the defendant’s age, his prior record, his 4 remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.”
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[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. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel David Ojanen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To determine whether a downward dispositional departure is justified, the court considers the non-exclusive 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. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Jonathan Hardy Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by