 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Anderson2/16/2005
was based began.
[ .] Affirmed.
[ .] KONENKAMP and ZINTER, Justices, concur.
[ .] SABERS, Justice, concurs in result.
[ .] MEIERHENRY, Justice, deeming herself disqualified, did not participate.
SABERS, Justice (concurring in result).
[ .] I concur in result because it is settled law that these two drug convictions were separate transactions. SDCL 22-7-9. In fact, I would affirm and expedite the opinion under settled South Dakota law. SDCL 15-26A-87.1.
[ .] I agree that it is unnecessary to address Issues 2 and 3. Therefore, I see no reason to "review the pertinent case law on separate transactions within the context of our habitual offender sentencing scheme." (See opinion, paragraph 31). Likewise, I would omit paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 35 as unnecessary.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|