State v. Bischoff

Summary

The concurrence agreed with the judgment that the ameliorative drug-sentencing legislation did not apply retroactively to the defendant because controlling precedent required prospective application unless the legislature expressly provided otherwise. The author stated that the controlling precedent was wrongly decided and that the legislative history strongly supported retroactive application, but concurred reluctantly under stare decisis. The concurrence emphasized that the legislation was intended to replace punitive drug-possession sentencing with a treatment-oriented and rehabilitative model.