Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sejnoha, 512 N.W.2d 597.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Aaron Joseph Jesmer Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[A] reviewing court must defer to the district court’s assessment of the sincerity and depth of [the defendant’s] remorse and what weight it should receive in the sentencing decision.” , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Hardy Mondelus Galette Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 1994), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Afeez Adebisi Ogundero Minn. Ct. App. 2025
8 (“[A] reviewing court must defer to the district court’s assessment of the sincerity and depth of the remorse and what weight it should receive in the sentencing decision.”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Gary Joseph Littlewolf Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota (A23-1698) (A23-1811) v. Cathy Olvera Sanchez (A23-1698) (A23-1811) Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See State v. Sejnoha , (stating that district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing impact of shorter prison sentence with no guarantee of treatment against treatment program and longer, highly structured probation), 12 rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Robert Allen Bennett Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The presence or absence of remorse can be a very significant factor in determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Franky Esquivel Torres Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Martin Minn. Ct. App. 2019
court “criticized [his] showing of remorse as inadequate” and argues that “a court’s finding of particular amenability to supervision cannot hinge on whether a defendant’s showing of remorse is neurotypical or highly emotive.” “The presence or absence of remorse can be a very significant factor in determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation.” d 597, 600 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Adam Ryan Lagred Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“These factors are not to be applied mechanically, but must be evaluated within the individual facts of each case.” State v. Sejnoha , review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Carl Remley Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“These factors are not to be applied mechanically, but must be evaluated within the individual facts of each case.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Boon Wa Thao Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The presence or absence of remorse can be a very significant factor in determining whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota (A15-1247) (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley (A15-1247) (A15-1255) Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota (A15-1247) (A15-1255) v. Randall Samuel Stempfley (A15-1247) (A15-1255) Minn. Ct. App. 2016
601 (Minn. App. 1994) (affirming a downward departure staying a presumptive 134-month executed sentence in a criminal-sexual-conduct case involving minors when the district court imposed numerous probationary terms to monitor the defendant’s progress in sex-offender treatment), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A party’s “prior record” is a valid consideration when determining whether a dispositional departure is appropriate, Trog, d at 31, as is “the risk to the public safety incurred in placing an offender on probation,” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lasheka Bolden Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Soto, d at 313; (holding that in addressing a request for a dispositional departure, the district court may consider the risk to public safety incurred as a result of placing a defendant on probation); review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Benjamin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Jeffries 787 N.W.2d 654 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(noting district court’s ordering of pre-plea investigation), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Saue 688 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, (affirming the downward dispositional departure of a sex offender evaluated as amenable to treatment and displaying extreme remorse), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hanf 687 N.W.2d 659 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
See, -01 (Minn.App.1994) (affirming downward dispositional departure for sex offender evaluated as amenable to treatment and displaying extreme remorse), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Woelfel 621 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(citations omitted), review denied (Minn. April 21, 1994).
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Law 620 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Apr.
In Re the Welfare of D.T.H. 572 N.W.2d 742 Minn. Ct. App. 1997