Trog factors in Minnesota

2026And while a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d at 80 ; see also Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 254 (rejecting Pegel’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to discuss each of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

2026And while a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d at 80 ; see also Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 254 (rejecting Pegel’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to discuss each of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

2026State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982) (Trog factors).

2023The supreme court has recognized that several factors, known as the Trog factors, “can be relevant to determining if a defendant is particularly amenable to probation, 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.’” Id. at 310 (quoting State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982)).

2026And while a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d at 80 ; see also Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 254 (rejecting Pegel’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to discuss each of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

2026And while a district court “is required to give reasons for departure, an explanation is not required when the court considers reasons for departure but elects to impose the presumptive sentence.” Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d at 80 ; see also Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 254 (rejecting Pegel’s argument that the district court abused its discretion by failing to discuss each of the Trog factors and observing that “there is no requirement that the district court must do so”).

2025See Wells v. State, 839 N.W.2d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that district court has discretion to impose presumptive sentence when Trog factors supporting a probationary sentence are present), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 2014); Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 253-54 (stating that district court is not required to grant departure, even if mitigating circumstances are present).

2025See Wells v. State, 839 N.W.2d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that district court has discretion to impose presumptive sentence when Trog factors supporting a probationary sentence are present), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 2014); Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 253-54 (stating that district court is not required to grant departure, even if mitigating circumstances are present).

2024See Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 310 (stating that the Trog factors provide a “useful framework” but “are not the only factors that can bear on a defendant’s amenability to probation”).

2024See Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 310 (stating that the Trog factors provide a “useful framework” but “are not the only factors that can bear on a defendant’s amenability to probation”).

2024Wells v. State, 839 N.W.2d 775, 781 (Minn. App. 2013) (stating that a district court always has discretion to impose a presumptive sentence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 2014); Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 253-54 (stating that a district court is not required to grant a departure, even if mitigating circumstances are present); Olson, 765 N.W.2d at 663 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart from a presumptive sentence, “even if there [was] evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation”).

2013See State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Minn.App.2009) (stating that a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing to depart “from a presumptively executed prison sentence, even if there is evidence in the record that the defendant would be amenable to probation”).

2014But a district court must “deliberately consider[] circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002).

2011“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002); see also State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984) (noting that record suggested factors for departure that should be deliberately considered).

2026See State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463 , 468- 69 (Minn. App. 2018).

2023See Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 8 . 6 Esteban Esquivel also argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to fully consider each of the Trog factors in its determination as to whether he is particularly amenable to probation.

2023See Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 8 . 6 Esteban Esquivel also argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to fully consider each of the Trog factors in its determination as to whether he is particularly amenable to probation.

2016State v. Chaklos, 528 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995); see also Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 313 (considering circumstances of offense of conviction when reviewing dispositional departure). 3 Analysis of the Trog factors indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying dispositional departures.

2016State v. Chaklos, 528 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995); see also Soto, 855 N.W.2d at 313 (considering circumstances of offense of conviction when reviewing dispositional departure). 3 Analysis of the Trog factors indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying dispositional departures.

2015See Abrahamson, 758 N.W.2d at 337 .

2015See Abrahamson, 758 N.W.2d at 337 .

2014State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984); see State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 360 (Minn. 2008) (stating that if mitigating factors are shown, district court may, but is not required to, depart); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present); Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 253-54 (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation).

2014See Wall, 343 N.W.2d at 25 (holding that mitigating factors do not require departure); see also Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d at 668 (affirming denial of a departure motion despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present).

2014State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984); see State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 360 (Minn. 2008) (stating that if mitigating factors are shown, district court may, but is not required to, depart); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present); Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 253-54 (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation).

2014See Wall, 343 N.W.2d at 25 (holding that mitigating factors do not require departure); see also Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d at 668 (affirming denial of a departure motion despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present).

2014State v. Wall, 343 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Minn. 1984); see State v. Jackson, 749 N.W.2d 353, 360 (Minn. 2008) (stating that if mitigating factors are shown, district court may, but is not required to, depart); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (affirming denial of a request for departure despite defendant’s argument that Trog factors were present); Pegel, 795 N.W.2d at 253-54 (stating that the mere existence of mitigating factors does not require the district court to place a defendant on probation).

2011“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002); see also State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984) (noting that record suggested factors for departure that should be deliberately considered).

2011“If the district court has discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, it must exercise that discretion by deliberately considering circumstances for and against departure.” State v. Mendoza, 638 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Minn.App.2002), review denied (Minn. Apr. 16, 2002); see also State v. Curtiss, 353 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Minn.App.1984) (noting that record suggested factors for departure that should be deliberately considered).

2004See generally State v. Hennessy, 328 N.W.2d 442, 443 (Minn.1983) (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).

1999See State v. Patton, 414 N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn.App.1987); State v. Ritt, 363 N.W.2d 908, 908-09 (Minn.App. 1985).

1999See State v. Patton, 414 N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn.App.1987); State v. Ritt, 363 N.W.2d 908, 908-09 (Minn.App. 1985).

1999See State v. Patton, 414 N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn.App.1987); State v. Ritt, 363 N.W.2d 908, 908-09 (Minn.App. 1985).

1999See State v. Patton, 414 N.W.2d 572, 575 (Minn.App.1987); State v. Ritt, 363 N.W.2d 908, 908-09 (Minn.App. 1985).