Court Opinion

ID: 4713262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 00:39:07.4193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:16.937080
License: Public Domain

¶16 Alexander, C.J.
(concurring in dissent) — I entirely agree with Justice Sanders who writes in dissent that “because the State is not an aggrieved party under RAP 3.1, we should dismiss.” Dissent at 581. That, in my view, is as far as we should go. I would, therefore, not go into a discussion, as Justice Sanders does, as to what we would do “[w]ere we to consider this matter on the merits.” Dissent at 582.
Madsen, J., concurs with Alexander, C.J.