Court Opinion

ID: 9740366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:33:28.485746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.699747
License: Public Domain

Connor T. Hansen, J.
(concurring). I concur with the conclusion reached by the majority of the court. However, I respectfully disagree with approbation given “trial-run” sentences in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Wilkie. I particularly disapprove of the following statement, “. . . I believe that the practice has much to commend it and recommend to the legislature that it adopt legislation that will authorize this procedure.” In my opinion, there are certain instances when it is entirely proper for this court to express its conclusions to the legislature in its written opinions.1 However, this issue of “trial-run” sentences is not one of them. The problems attendant to the intricate and complicated matters of criminal rehabilitation and the administration of penal institutions and rehabilitation programs far transcend appellate court judicial expertise and wisdom.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hanley and Mr. Justice Robert W. Hansen join in this concurring opinion.

 Peterson v. Roloff, ante, p. 1, 203 N. W. 2d 699.