 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anaya12/6/1996
680 (1991) (plurality opinion) (upholding a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole for a conviction of possession of 672 grams of cocaine where defendant had no prior felony convictions). Finally, even in Indiana, which has adopted a rule of construction that favors a more specific over a more general enhancement statute, such arguments have found no sympathy. See Stanek, 603 N.E.2d at 154. The argument that Defendants have been the focus of cruel and unusual punishment seems to me to lack support in the case law.
II.
{73} For all of these reasons I respectfully Dissent from the Court's holding on the second issue addressed. However, I concur in the Court's resolution of the first issue.
{74} I believe that Defendant Anaya's judgment and sentence should be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing. The State having conceded that it failed to prove three prior DWI convictions in sequence, he must be resentenced for misdemeanor DWI. Defendants Kilgore and Irish each raised issues other than the sentencing issues discussed in this opinion. I would remand their causes to the Court of Appeals for resolution of those other issues. I would affirm Defendant Gonzales' judgment and sentence. I would also affirm Defendant Martinez' judgment and sentence. In the case of Defendant Nakai, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed his judgment and sentence.
PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice
Concurring in part and Dissenting in part
I CONCUR.
JOSEPH F. BACA, Chief Justice
|