Court Opinion

ID: 9784279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:41:24.384418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:51.896269
License: Public Domain

MURDOCK, Justice
(concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result).
I concur in the analysis of the main opinion in all respects except one. I am not at this time fully persuaded of the merit of the so-called extraordinary-circumstances exception to the general rule we announce today regarding the inability of an appellate court to raise sua sponte a Rule 32.2(a) preclusive bar that has been waived by the State or, if such an exception is to exist, precisely what its parameters should be. Moreover, I see no need to decide these issues in this case. These issues have not been briefed to this Court, and, as the main opinion itself notes, the facts of this particular case would not appear to lend themselves to such an exception. I, therefore, would not go so far as does the main opinion in affirmatively recognizing and defining such an exception in the present case.