Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Carper

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided May 8, 1989No. 17586Published

1Concurrence

WALTERS, Chief Judge,

specially concurring.

While I agree that the thirty-day sentence imposed in this case was reasonable, I believe this Court’s holding in regard to the length of the sentence is little more than a gratuitous imprimatur, because of mootness of the sentence issue. See Dillingham v. Commonwealth, 249 S.W.2d 827 (Ky.1952). It will be recalled that Carper was given thirty days in confinement, to be served concurrent with a sentence already being served by him in the penitentiary. At the time Carper received the thirty-day sentence, the judge informed him that he had forty-two…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. SnyderIdaho Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Dillingham v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API