Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Stenklyft

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 2005No. 2003AP1533-CRPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.

¶ 81. {concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the lead opinion that the order of the circuit court should be reversed. Because I disagree with the lead opinion's conclusion that Wis. Stat. § 973.195 should be interpreted to allow a district attorney to veto a petition for sentence adjustment and that the statute so interpreted is constitutional, I conclude that the matter should not be remanded for the circuit court to deny the petition for sentence adjustment. I would, as Justice Crooks explains, remand for the circuit court to exercise its discretion whether to grant the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. United States v. BenzSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho)California Supreme Court · 1974
  3. State v. HolmesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
  4. State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. State v. SetagordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API