State of Missouri v. Kevin Johnson, and State of Missouri v. Kevin Johnson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “there is no role for judicial review” of an “agreed-upon part” of a sentence
• stating that the parties had agreed that, upon revocation, “the state could argue for consecutive sentences and [the] defendant could argue for concurrent ones”
• stating that the parties had agreed that, upon revocation, “the state could argue for consecutive sentences and [the] defendant could argue for concurrent ones”
• explaining that “when multiple statutory provisions potentially conflict, if the court can give full effect to both statutes, it will do so” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• stating that the agreement was that the state “could ask for” consecutive sentences, and the defendant would “be free to ask” for concurrent sentences (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that the agreement was that the state “could ask for” consecutive sentences, and the defendant would “be free to ask” for concurrent sentences (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).