 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Christensen v. State1/13/1999
hat happened in your '91 case, which are that you could kill someone, and expressing from the community's point of view how very serious this kind of crime is, all militate in favor of a maximum penalty."
Judge Rhoades then sentenced Christensen to 360 days for driving while intoxicated, concurrently to a sentence of 360 days with 330 days suspended for attempted vehicle theft.
On appeal, Christensen contends that Judge Rhoades erred by finding that he was a "worst offender" based solely on his criminal history. Christensen argues that his criminal history is insufficient to clearly establish that he is incorrigible or incapable of rehabilitation so that a "worst offender" finding would be justified. This contention is without merit. A "worst offender" finding can be based on the circumstances of the present offense, on the defendant's criminal history, or both. It is well settled that a long history of repeated misdemeanor convictions will justify a finding that a misdemeanant is a "worst offender" within that class. In Dodge v. Anchorage, this court upheld a "worst offender" finding for a defendant convicted of driving while intoxicated who had been convicted of manslaughter nine years previously for crashing an airplane while intoxicated, even though the defendant had been crime-free since then.
The sentencing court has discretion to determine the weight and priority to be accorded to the various sentencing goals. In this case, Judge Rhoades addressed and weighed the sentencing criteria, and it appears from the record that she did not abuse her discretion in emphasizing deterrence and discounting rehabilitation in this case.
Based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that Judge Rhoades was not clearly mistaken in imposing sentence. We AFFIRM.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|