Cited by

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

561 citing documents.

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
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Anthony Engebretson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
rog, the 5 Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “[n]umerous 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.” d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Luke Mathias Erkkila Minn. Ct. App. 2014
cellent candidate for probation.” In State v. Trog, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “[n]umerous 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. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In doing so, the district court may 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. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jose Arriage Soto, Jr. 855 N.W.2d 303 Minn. 2014
To be sure, we have 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.” (emphasis added)
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Basil Benna Dudley Minn. Ct. App. 2014
sons existed to grant [his] requested dispositional departure.” Dudley asserts that “this case should be remanded to the district court for a new sentencing hearing for reconsideration of the departure question” because the district court “analyzed the request for a departure without consideration of the Trog factors when the court denied the dispositional departure motion.” the supreme court stated that “a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting
State of Minnesota v. Gary Richard Wessman Minn. Ct. App. 2014