Cited by

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 739, 745- 46 (2007) (discussing factors the court may consider when deciding to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 740 (2007).

s offenses that he could be subjected to consecutive sentences; (4) he was denied access to the courts; (5) “RSA 651-A:6, II is constitutionally still in effect”; (6) parole into a consecutive sentence is “unconstitutional and illegal” and the Adult Parole Board (APB) lacks the authority to do so; (7) Petition of Warden (State v. Roberts), 168 N.H. 9 (2015), Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737 (2007), and Blackstock v. Executive Assistant, Adult Parole Board, Case No. 2014-0720,

Prior to its repeal, the provision “provided for all sentences to run concurrently except those of persons convicted of a felony either during imprisonment or an escape from imprisonment.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 741 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 745 (2007).

“The separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is an important part of its constitutional fabric.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 746 (2007).

Legislative acts are presumed to be constitutional and will not be declared invalid “except upon inescapable grounds.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 745 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 740 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 740 (2007).

‘Where more than one reasonable interpretation of the statutory language exists, we review legislative history to aid our analysis.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 740 (2007).

from encroaching upon the powers and functions of another branch.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 746-47 (2007).

Part I, Article 37 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that “the legislative, executive, and judicial, ought to be kept as separate from, and independent of, each other, as the nature of a free government will admit.” This clause “is violated only when one branch usurps an essential power of another.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 747 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 747 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 747, 919 A.2d 767 (2007).

Thus, the New Hampshire Separation of Powers Clause “is violated only when one branch usurps an essential power of another.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 747 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 745 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 745 (2007).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 746 (2007).

As both the decision whether to impose a sentence of home confinement, see.RSA 262:23, I (sentencing court “may order” habitual offender to serve all or part of sentence under home confinement), and the “selection of either concurrent or consecutive sentences rest[] within the discretion of sentencing judges,” Duquette n Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 742 (2007) (quotation omitted), we remand for the trial court’s determination, in its sound discretion, of an appropriate sentence.

“In matters of statutory interpretation, we are the *706 final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 740 (2007).

requires the trial court to consider all the relevant factors necessary to the exercise of its discretion,” including “whether the sentence imposed will meet the traditional goals of sentencing— punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.” Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 746 (2007) (quotation omitted).

Duquette v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, 154 N.H. 737, 740 (2007).