State v. Reis
Hawaii Supreme Court
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
ACOBA, J.
I respectfully dissent.
In my view, the majority in this case incorrectly applies the terms “proceedings” and “penalty incurred” in the generic savings clause in Section 29 of Act 44, 2004 Haw. Sess. L. Act 44 [hereinafter Act 44], § 29 [hereinafter Section 29], to preclude the application of Section 11 of Act 44 [hereinafter, Section 11] to Defendant-Appellee Susan Reis (Reis). In light of its ameliorative and remedial purpose of allowing first-time drug offenders to be sentenced to probation, Section 11 should be applied to Reis because (1) under a plain reading…
2Cases cited80 opinions
- Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Evangelatos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Warden v. MarreroSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Bradley v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.