Court Opinion

ID: 9780006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 01:09:26.754997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:50.355131
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, J., concurs.
|,I must respectfully concur with the majority’s well-written opinion, because I cannot agree with the procedure used by this court in consolidating these two appeals following their submission to the court for decision.
*774Initially, these cases were separately docketed in the normal course and randomly assigned to different three-judge panels, with one judge who was sitting on both panels. Daigle, 46,429, was submitted to the court for decision on June 20, 2011, without argument. Daigle, 46,492, was submitted for decision following oral argument on June 21, 2011.
However, following submission, this court consolidated the two appeals on its own motion, noting the common issue of recusal.
Upon consolidation after the cases were submitted for decision, I believe this court was obligated to hear these appeals en banc.