P. v. Bondiek
Defendant Mike Bondiek appeals following a conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol. He argues there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty, and further claims the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by failing to admonish two witnesses not to refer to excluded evidence. He also contends he is entitled to additional presentence credits due to a change in the relevant statute which he argues should be applied retroactively. We find that none of these arguments have merit, and therefore affirm.
Comments on P. v. Bondiek