Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Application of Grosh

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 1987No. 15606Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMiller, Justice

I concur with that part of the majority opinion holding that the trial court improperly revoked Grosh’s work release. However, I dissent from the ultimate result which fully reinstates the modified sentence and which, at least impliedly, prohibits the trial court from examining Grosh’s prior conduct to ascertain, in an appropriate proceeding, whether work release should be revoked for such conduct.

*829Initially, I should state that I disagree with the majority’s interchangeable use of the words “modification” and “reduction.” The terms are not synonymous. However, under the facts of this case,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. OlsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  2. State v. McCormickSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  3. State v. EllefsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API