Court Opinion

ID: 9577346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:34:01.945178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:24.476273
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent. It appears to me that the majority opinion bases an erroneous grammatical construction on the language of the statute we have under consideration. The pertinent provision of the statute is set *338forth in the majority opinion and I repeat it here:
(1)(a) Prosecution for violation of any law or offense occurring prior to the effective date of this act shall not be affected by this act; provided, that sentences imposed after the effective date of this act may not exceed the maximum terms specified and the judge has discretion to impose any minimum sentence.
(2) This act does not affect rights and duties that mature, penalties that are incurred, and proceedings that are begun before its effective date.
The subject of that sentence comprising Section (1) (a) of the Drug Abuse Control Law is the word “prosecution” rather than the phrase “violation of any law or offense occurring prior to the effective date” as assumed by the language of the majority opinion. This interpretation is further borne out by. the latter portion of subpara-graph (2) which reads: “ . . . and proceedings that are begun before its effective date.”
The majority opinion also cites provisions of Section 68-2-8, U.C.A.19S3, as being in support of its opinion. However, the legislature in drafting and adopting the Drug Abuse Control Law included a specific savings clause as a part thereof which 'would be controlling in this case. Had the legislature omitted entirely a savings clause then the general statute would have some ápplication.
I would affirm the decision of the court below.