| Concurrence [ Stevens ] | Dissent [ White ] |
|---|---|
| HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No.
MONTANA, PETITIONER v. DONALD GLENN IMLAY
on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of montana
[
Justice
Thus, no matter which party might prevail in this Court, the respondent's term of imprisonment will be the same. At oral argument, neither counsel identified any way in which the interests of his client would be advanced by a favorable decision on the merits--except, of course, for the potential benefit that might flow from an advisory opinion. [n.1] Because it is not the business of this Court torender such opinions, it wisely decides to dismiss a petition that should not have been granted in the first place.
Notes
1 Indeed, counsel for the State went so far as to explain that a victory for Montana on the merits would actually work to the advantage of respondent, by subjecting him to treatment leading to parole eligibility:
"Question: So you're really trying to advance his [respondent's] interests?
"[Answer]: Yes, sir, we are.
"Question: He is better off if you win than if you lose.
"[Answer]: In our judgment that is certainly the case." Tr. of Oral Arg. 5.