State v. Dopkowski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in imposing a sentence for violation of probation, a trial court is not required to provide explicit findings indicating it took into account unsworn statements made by defendant
• noting that the sentencing court has \virtually boundless discretion\ in imposing a sentence
• noting that the sentencing court has “virtually boundless discretion” in imposing a sentence
• finding no abuse of discretion when the trial judge reimposed a five-year sentence, after an adjudication of violation of probation, without the trial judge explicating that he exercised his discretion in reaching that result
• finding no abuse of discretion when the trial judge reimposed a five-year sentence, after an adjudication of violation of probation, without the trial judge explicating that he exercised his discretion in reaching that result
• listing objectives of sentencing in criminal proceeding as “punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).