State v. Heywood

183 Citing cases

  1. State v. Emerson

    No. A23-1714 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 8, 2024)

    "[W]hen justifying . . . a dispositional departure, the [district] court can focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983) (emphasis omitted). The Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines provide:

  2. State v. Rund

    896 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2017)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that defendant's threats to kill police officers were not less serious because they were made with a reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, as opposed to a purposeful intent to cause terror; the terroristic-threats statute prohibited both purposeful and reckless conduct

    Durational departures may be justified by offense-related reasons only. Solberg , 882 N.W.2d at 625 ; cf.State v. Heywood , 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983) ("[W]hen justifying only a dispositional departure, the trial court can focus more on the defendant as an individual...."). Offender-related reasons—such as particular amenability to probation or treatment, remorse that does not reduce the seriousness of the offense, or age—are not legally permissible reasons for a downward durational departure.

  3. State v. Soto

    855 N.W.2d 303 (Minn. 2014)   Cited 487 times
    Holding that the district court erred by finding that a defendant's age made him particularly amenable to probation when he was 37 years old, which was older than 60 percent of defendants convicted of the same crime

    In another case, in which we affirmed the district court's decision to stay two presumably executed sentences, we mentioned the district court's findings that one defendant played a passive role in the underlying crimes, did not seriously injure anyone, and was unlikely to reoffend, and that the other defendant did not pose a threat to public safety. State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn.1983) (explaining that “when justifying only a dispositional departure, the trial court can focus more ... on whether the presumptive sentence would be best ... for society,” in addition to other factors (second emphasis added)); see also State v. Clemmer, 328 N.W.2d 739, 739–40 (Minn.1983) (affirming a stayed sentence for a defendant convicted of selling drugs and noting that the district court found that the defendant was not violent, sold drugs to support his family, and was seeking treatment for chemical dependency); State v. Hennessy, 328 N.W.2d 442, 443 (Minn.1983) (affirming a stayed sentence and referring to the district court's conclusion that the defendant's motivation to correct his behavior, combined with the supervision provided by a structured rehabilitation program, “significantly outweighed” the risk posed by putting him on probation). There are no such findings to support the district court's decision to depart in this case.

  4. State v. Wetzel

    No. A19-0091 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2019)   Cited 6 times
    In Wetzel, as in this case, the district court referenced several of the Trog factors, including the defendant's age, family support, and remorse, but never explicitly found that the defendant was particularly amenable to probation.

    "[W]hen justifying only a dispositional departure, the trial court can focus more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). But, a district court is not limited to considering only offender-related factors when deciding whether to impose a downward dispositional departure; it may also consider offense-related factors.

  5. State v. Martin

    A18-1218 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 28, 2019)

    When considering a downward-dispositional departure, the district court focuses "more on the defendant as an individual and on whether the [guidelines] sentence would be best for him and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). "Numerous factors, 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, are relevant to a determination whether a defendant is particularly suitable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting."

  6. State v. Lee

    A17-1116 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2018)

    This consideration is often guided by a number of different factors, commonly referred to as the Trog factors. See State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983) (citing Trog, 323 N.W.2d at 31). One of these factors is whether the defendant has a "particular amenability to individualized treatment in a probationary setting."

  7. State v. Tischer

    A15-1630 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2016)

    When justifying a dispositional departure, the district court focuses "on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). Minnesota courts are guided by several factors to determine whether a defendant is particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting.

  8. State v. Matthews

    A13-1950 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2014)

    " Id. The district court's focus is "on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for him and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 7. Nonetheless, a district court must "deliberately consider[]" the factors that are offered by a defendant in support of a motion for a downward dispositional departure.

  9. State v. Soto

    A13-0997 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Amenability to probation can provide a basis for a dispositional departure. See State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983) (stating that the district court can focus on defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence is good for him and for society in justifying a dispositional departure); State v. Wright, 310 N.W.2d 461, 462-63 (Minn. 1981) (upholding a dispositional departure when a defendant with no prior criminal history was "particularly unamenable to incarceration and particularly amenable to individualized treatment in a probationary setting").

  10. State v. Pao Yang

    A11-1910 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2012)

    When considering a downward dispositional departure, a district court focuses "on the defendant as an individual and on whether the presumptive sentence would be best for [the defendant] and for society." State v. Heywood, 338 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Minn. 1983). "[A]menability to probation is a sufficient basis for a downward dispositional departure."