Court Opinion

ID: 9787023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:08:50.21698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:51.466861
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 25] The presentence investigation report submitted in this case clearly violated the dictates of W.R.Cr.P. 82(a)(@Q)(B). It is not a report; it is a diatribe based apparently upon the writer's personal animosity toward the appellant and sympathy for the victims. While the majority opinion touches upon this fact, I write separately to state more forcefully that, were it not for the excellent job done by the district court both in "distinguishing the wheat from the chaff," and in setting forth the specific record facts upon which the sentence was based, I would vote to reverse the sentence and remand to the district court for preparation of a new presentence investigation report, prepared by a different agent.