State v. Stenklyft
Wisconsin Supreme Court
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
- United States v. BenzSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho)California Supreme Court · 1974
- State v. HolmesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
- State v. SetagordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.