Document: 506 U.S. 5 113 S.Ct. 444 121 L.Ed.2d 310 MONTANA, petitioner,v.Donald Glenn IMLAY. No. 91-687. Supreme Court of the United States November 3, 1992 PER CURIAM. 1 The writ certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 Justice STEVENS, concurring. 3 When trial judge revoked respondent's parole, he reinstated a 5-year sentence imprisonment. On appeal, Montana Court, in decision before us, vacated revocation order and remanded case for resentencing. 249 Mont. 82, 813 P.2d 979 (1991). court subsequently resentenced respondent, again to term imprisonment, upheld that judgment not now us review. 4 Thus, no matter which party might prevail this imprisonment will be same. At oral argument, neither counsel identified any way interests his client would advanced by favorable on merits—except, course, potential benefit flow from an advisory opinion.1 Because it business render such opinions, wisely decides dismiss petition should have been granted first place. WHITE, dissenting. 6 We consider whether Fifth Amendment bars State conditioning probation upon probationer's successful completion therapy program required admit responsibility criminal acts. In below, held that, "absent grant immunity" prosecution incriminating statements made during therapy, "prohibit[s] augmenting defendant's because refuses confess crime or invokes privilege against self-incrimination." 91, 979, 985 constitutional question important one below places conflict with other courts. See v. Gleason, 154 Vt. 205, 576 A.2d 1246 (1990); Henderson State, 543 So.2d 344 (Fla.App.1989); Russell Eaves, 722 F.Supp. 558 (ED Mo.1989), appeal dismissed, 902 F.2d 1574 (CA8 1990). I believe we decide resolve conflict. 7 As initial matter, there can doubt "final judgment" purposes 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Although resentencing, clearly "the federal issue, finally decided highest survive require regardless outcome future state-court proceedings." Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469, 480, 95 1029, 1038, 43 328 (1975); see also Brady Maryland, 373 83, 85, n. 1, 83 1194, 1195, 10 215 (1963). 8 however, two further questions were raised concerning live controversy persists case. First, respondent stated had assured state corrections officials paroled very near future. If true, could practical effect sentence. Second, petitioner belief probationer enjoy immunity court-ordered therapy. This statement calls into critical assumption underpinning Court's suggest really disagreement about Amendment's application 9 my view, party's representation sufficient deprive its status controversy. both parties readily acknowledged, nothing record support expectation shortly without regard State's program. far concerned, affect eligibility parole thus real consequences litigants. Nor does "concession" defendant based therapist moot otherwise unsuitable appeared rest solely Minnesota Murphy, 465 420, 104 1136, 79 409 (1984), mandated result. That reading at least debatable. concession appears reflect possible misunderstanding obligations under law rather than unequivocal unconditional declaration own prosecutorial policy, obviate Murphy shown erroneous, well revert view prosecuted basis postconviction Such qualified too uncertain find presented. Cf. Generix Drug Corp., 460 453, 456, 6, 103 1298, 1300, 75 198 (1983); Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 199, 203, 89 361, 364, 21 (1968). event, evidently was protected others position continues suffer holding. 11 genuine presented case, respectfully dissent dismissal certiorari. Indeed, went so explain victory merits actually work advantage subjecting him treatment leading eligibility: "Question: So you're trying advance [respondent's] interests? "[Answer]: Yes, sir, are. He better off if you win lose. our certainly case." Tr. Oral Arg. 5.

Category: 8