State v. Reif

(concurring in part, concurring in result in part).

Although I generally concur in the majority writing, I only concur in the result of Issue One. It appears to me that the majority author’s treatment of said issue is too broad and misleading. The majority author says:

In a revocation proceeding, a constitutional attack on the underlying charge is without merit because the proceeding relates to whether or not the terms of probation have been violated.

That statement is not totally accurate or legally sound. Given a literal reading, one might presume that under the majority writing (based upon…