Legal Opinion · Dissent

Billis v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 1990No. 88-311, 89-4, 88-312, 88-250, 88-304 and 88-310Published

1DissentUrbigkit, Chief Justice

We may as well provide two chairs on the bench during sentencing — one for the judge and one for the prosecutor — and be done with pretense. I dissent for two reasons. First, I would hold that Wyoming’s separation of powers provision1 prohibits the prosecutor from exercising any power over sentencing. Second, I would hold that the 1987 amendments to what is now W.S. 7-13-301 violate Wyo. Const, art. 3, §§ 20 and 24.

I. WHAT WE HAVE HERE AND WHY I WORRY!

The majority opinion can be breathtaking at times in the display of its scholastic strength. It is, however, an excellent answer to the wrong…

2Cases cited132 opinions

  1. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Sibron v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  5. Bowsher v. SynarSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

127 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