Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Garrymore

Montana Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 2006No. 04-644Published

1Concurrence

JUSTICE NELSON,

specially concurring.

*17I. Introduction

¶45 I concur in the result of the Court’s Opinion; however, I do not agree with the lack of detail in the Court’s reasoning. I therefore write separately to set forth an independent analysis of the important issues raised in this appeal.

¶46 In particular, with respect to Issue 1,1 agree with the Court that, notwithstanding Garrymore’s failure to raise his sentencing claims in the first instance in the District Court, we nevertheless may reach the merits of those claims by way of the Lenihan exception to the timely objection rule. See State v.…

2Cases cited89 opinions

  1. Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. United States v. BookerSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  3. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004

84 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