Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hennessy, 328 N.W.2d 442.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
For example, an appellate court affirmed a downward dispositional departure where the record showed the defendant “finally was motivated to try to rehabilitate himself and had found the right program to help him do it.” -43 (Minn. 1983) ; -11 (Minn. App. 1984) (affirming a downward departure despite the defendant’s lengthy criminal history based on the district court’s finding “that the defendant has reached a very critical stage in his life, and that if the defendant is ever to
State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sharmark Hussein Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Tyler James Kennedy Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sharmark Hussein Jama Minn. Ct. App. 2025
16, 1984), as examples of similar circumstances under which dispositional departures were granted and then affirmed on appeal.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When considering particular amenability to probation that involves chemical-dependency treatment , a “defendant’s apparent willingness to succeed in treatment is a ground for a dispositional departure.” .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Trog, d at 31; (affirming downward departure based on a defendant’s particular amenability to probation established by a rehabilitative motive).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
he argues that he is motivat ed to pursue rehabilitation and the record supports that he utilized community resources, “establis h[ing] [his] amenability to probation.” The district court acknowledged that it reviewed a letter of support from appellant’s therapist of “several years.” The district c
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 442, 443 (Minn. 1983); (“[A]menability may also be premised on timely observation of motive to reform.”), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(discussing motivation to change); (discussing unamenability to prison).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
He argues that his criminal re cord demonstrates that “incarceration has not helped him remain law abiding.” For support, (affirming district court’s dispositional departure in presumptive commit case), and State 9 v. Malinski, (concluding district court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for dispositional departure), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
But particular amenability to probation may “be premised on timely observation of motive to reform.” State v. Malinski , (), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. John Porter Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- 43 (Minn. App. 1983) (affirming dispositional departure when, although defendant had criminal-history score of seven, he had not previously been adequately supervised outside of prison setting, and he had been admitted to highly structured treatment program and appeared motivated to control his drinking prob
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
for society,” in addition to other factors (second emphasis added)); -40 (Minn.1983) (affirming a stayed sentence for a defendant convicted of selling drugs and noting that the district court found that the defendant was not violent, sold drugs to support his family, and was seeking treatment for chemical dependency); (affirming a stayed sentence and referring to the district court’s conclusion that the defendant’s motivation to correct his behavior, combined with the supervision provided by a s
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(affirming dispositional departure where district court was satisfied “that the risk of placing defendant on probation was significantly outweighed” by indications defendant would succeed on probation).
State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. B.Y. 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. By 659 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 2003
State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Sejnoha 512 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See, (risk of placing defendant on probation is a factor when considering dispositional departure).
State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Carter 424 N.W.2d 821 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(“defendant’s apparent willingness to succeed in treatment is a ground for a dispositional departure in the form of a stay of execution of sentence”); (affirming trial court’s downward dispositional departure where defendant with drinking problem “finally was motivated to try to rehabilitate himself and had found the right program to help him do it”).
State v. Malinski 353 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Malinski 353 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
departure for probation was affirmed where the sentencing court felt the defendant, a 24 year old man with an extensive record of *210 non-violent property offenses, could be rehabilitated without being confined in prison, and that the risk of placing him on probation was significantly outweighed by eviden
State v. Pickett 343 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pickett 343 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In other cases, our court has stated that “a defendant’s particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting will justify departure in the form of a stay of imposition or execution of a presumptively executed sentence.”
State v. Heywood 338 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1983
State v. Heywood 338 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 1983
inn.1982), we said, “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 v. King 337 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1983
State v. King 337 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 1983
State v. Boynton 331 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1983
State v. Boynton 331 N.W.2d 926 Minn. 1983
This ease is a where, on similar facts, we upheld a dispositional departure by the same judge with respect to defendant’s accomplice.
State v. Nelson 329 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1983
State v. Nelson 329 N.W.2d 827 Minn. 1983