 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lanni v. State6/27/2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 4415
Douglas W. Lanni was convicted of manslaughter, a class A felony and driving while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor. Superior Court Judge Niesje J. Steinkruger sentenced Lanni to six years of imprisonment with ten months suspended. She ordered Lanni's driver's license revoked "for a period of six years starting from the date of his release from incarceration." Lanni filed a motion to modify the license revocation. He argued that the Alaska statute that authorizes courts to revoke a driver's license requires the license revocation to begin when sentence is imposed. He argued that therefore the court was required to have his license revocation start from the date when he was sentenced and that the revocation would end six years from that date. Judge Steinkruger denied the motion to modify. We agree with Lanni that the statute required his driver's license revocation to begin when he was sentenced. But we conclude that Cochran v. State directs us to carry out Judge Steinkruger's intent that Lanni's driver's license revocation does not end until six years after his release from confinement.
Alaska Statute 28.15.181(a) provides for revocation of a driver's license upon conviction of certain listed offenses. Manslaughter resulting from driving a motor vehicle is one of the listed offenses.
Alaska Statute 28.15.211(b) specifies when a licence shall be revoked:
A . . . revocation . . . imposed by a court takes effect on the date of final judgment, except that if another . . . revocation is in effect on the date of final judgment, the effective date of the last imposed . . . revocation is at the end of the last day of the previous . . . revocation unless the court specifies otherwise.
The statute clearly states that the revocation takes effect on the date of final judgment unless another suspension is in effect at that time. The state relies on the concluding words of the statute "unless the court specifies otherwise," but this language only applies to a situation where another revocation is in effect. We therefore agree with Lanni that the court was required to make the date of final judgment the effective date of his license revocation.
Lanni argues that, given this interpretation of AS 28.15.211(b), his sentence was illegal because Judge Steinkruger revoked his driver's license for a period of six years starting from the date of his release from incarceration. He argues that she was required to modify the revocation so that it began on the day he was sentenced. He contends that because Judge Steinkruger was required by law to impose his license revocation to begin the day he was sentenced, his license revocation could only continue for six years from that date. He argues that carrying out Judge Steinkruger's order that the revocation run until six years after his release from confinement constitutes an illegal increase in his sentence.
Once a sentence is meaningfully imposed, a trial judge cannot increase the defendant's sentence without violating his double jeopardy rights. But Judge Steinkruger did not increase Lanni's sentence. From the outset, she unambiguously communicated her intent to revoke Lanni's driver's license until six years after his release from confinement. We find the reasoning of Cochran v. State persuasive in resolving this issue. Cochran was convicted of one count of forgery and one count of uttering a check with insufficient funds. The trial court sentenced Cochran to a term of six years with three years suspended for the forgery count. The court then purported to impose a consecutive five-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the cou
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|