Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hickman, 666 N.W.2d 729.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Cherry Lynn Osborne Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Jamison Franklin Wells Minn. Ct. App. 2025
does not rule out amenability to probation
State of Minnesota v. Samuel David Teachman 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 v. Jamez Antoine Powell 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 v. Robert Allen Bennett 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 v. Kevin Anthony Sollitto 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 v. Nathan Edward Garrett 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 v. Peter Jay Engen 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 v. Fahid Nazir 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 v. Ashley Monique Swart Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, vs, Tyler Paul Wetzel 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 v. Scott David Quall 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 v. Stephen Jeroy Mister Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley 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).