State v. Stoen

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding a 6-year increase in the decay period as applied to defendant who violated the amended statute only 52 days after the amendment was effective
• declining to assume a partisan role and undertake research and advocacy on behalf of a party
• finding an amendment that extended the look-back period for subsequent operating-while-intoxicated convictions did not violate ex post facto protections because the most recent offense occurred after the statute was enacted
• no ex post facto violation where amendment increased the six year limitation to twelve years
• “the enhancement of punishment is for the pending offense, not the previous offenses”
• amended operating while intoxicated statute did not operate as an ex post facto law as applied to the defendant because the statute’s enhanced penalty amendments were in effect at the time the defendant committéd the pending offense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).