Cited by

(stating that district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(stating that district court has discretion to impose presumptive sentence when Trog factors supporting a probationary sentence are present), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

See Van Ruler, d at 80; (stating that district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

“[T]he presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

pain to a perfectly innocent victim, justice demands the punishment of a prison sentence as proper retribution for the enormity of the offense.” While Schneeberger may have demonstrated the existence of several Trog factors, “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Pegel , d at 253-54; rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(stating that a district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

Wells v. State , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(stating that a district court always has 2 The district court noted that it was not assigned the co-defendant’s matter and the co - defendant’s sentence was unknown.

7 probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

(d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984)).

Assuming, without deciding, that these Trog factors show appellant’s particular am enability to probation, “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the [district] court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter [prison] term.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court’s “decision is ba sed on an erroneous vi ew of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

These are often called the “Trog 7 factors.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

Even so, “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” Wells v. State , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

“[T]he presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” Wells v. State , (second alteration in original) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

“A district court must order the presumptive sentence provided in the sentencing guidelines unless the case involves substantial and compelling circumstances that warrant a downward departure.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

“In weighing whether to grant a downward dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence, a district court considers the defendant as an individual and focuses on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for [her] and for society.” (quotation omitted) (emphasis omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

But “the presence of mitigating factors does not obligate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Feb.

But “the presence of mitigating factors does ‘not obligate the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shorter term than the presumptive term.’” (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Wall , ), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Therefore, we conclude that the term “amenability to probation” in section 152.152 sh ould also be interpreted broadl y to mean information regarding the offender as an individual that goes to “whether t he presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society.” See Wright, d at 462; (“In weighing whether to grant a downward 9 dispositional departure from the presumptive sentence, a distri ct court considers the defendant as an individual and focuses on whether the presumptive sentence woul

“[T]he presence of mitiga ting factors does ‘not oblig ate the court to place a defendant on probation or impose a shor ter term than the presumptive term.’” (), review denied (Minn. Feb.

review denied (Minn. Feb.

4 “[T]he presence of mitigati ng factors does ‘not obligat e the court to place [a] defendant on probation or impose a shor ter term than the presumptive term.’” (second alteration in original) (), review denied (Minn. Feb.

Wells v. State , review denied (Minn. Feb.