Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hickman, 666 N.W.2d 729.
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
does not rule out amenability to probation
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“A defendant’s amenability to probation may by itself support a downward dispositional departure.” –32 (Minn. App. 2003).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2 (Minn. App. 2003) (observing that admitting 11 guilt is a “critical factor in an offender’s amenability to treatment”); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
- State of Minnesota v. Roel Joseph Perez, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Roel Joseph Perez, Jr.
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“A defendant’s amenability to probation may by itself support a downward dispositional departure.” -32 (Minn. App. 2003).
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[A]menability to probation depends on an offender’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation and benefit from the opportunity for rehabilitation that 4 probation affords.” State v. Hickman
- State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-
State of Minnesota v. Jesse James Niesen
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“[A]menability to probation depends on an offender’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation and benefit from the opportunity for rehabilitation that probation affords.”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“[A] single mitigating factor may support a downward sentencing departure.”); (affirming dispositional departure despite defendant’s lack of remorse).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
While the acceptance of responsibility and expression of remorse are factors that can support a dispositional departure, the district court acted within its discretion by discrediting this evidence.
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In his brief to this court, Engen argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his motion because he is “particularly amenable to treatment and probation.” Engen argues that he is particularly amenable to probation because he “admitted guilt and took responsibility,” which is “a critical factor in an offender’s amenability,”
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A defendant’s “amenability to probation depends on [the defendant]’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation and benefit from the opportunity for rehabilitation that probation affords.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In assessing whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, a district court may consider the Trog factors: “the defendant’s age, his prior record, his remorse, his cooperation, his attitude while in court, and the support of friends and/or family.” see also State v. Hickman , (applying the Trog factors to particular amenability to probation).
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(noting that, when an offender is able to comply with probation conditions, probation affords offenders the benefit of rehabilitation).
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[A]menability to probation depends on an offender’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation and benefit from the opportunity for rehabilitation that probati on affords.”
- State of Minnesota v. Yatarrie Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Yatarrie Lee Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
- State of Minnesota v. N.K.I. Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. N.K.I.
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A]menability to probation depends on an offender’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation and benefit from the opportunity for rehabilitation that probation affords.”
- Unity Church of St. Paul v. State 694 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-
Unity Church of St. Paul v. State
694 N.W.2d 585
Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(holding that a party is not entitled to appellate review of an advisory opinion of the district court).