 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stotesbury v. State3/13/2002
nces of imprisonment shall run consecutively." In State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900 (Alaska App. 1985) , we recognized that the 1982 amendment "reversed [the prior] preference" for concurrent sentences and, in its place, substituted "a preference for consecutive sentences which a trial court has discretion to reject in appropriate circumstances." Although we have not confronted this precise issue in the years since Andrews was decided, it appears that AS 12.55.025(e) now embodies the minority rule - the rule that two sentences should be deemed consecutive if the sentencing judge fails to affirmatively express an intention to impose them concurrently.
But I ultimately conclude that we need not resolve these issues in Stotesbury's case - because Judge Murphy apparently did express his intention on this point. Toward the end of the sentencing hearing, Judge Murphy remarked to his in-court clerk that Stotesbury's sentence was "5 years flat time". Because Judge Murphy had just imposed sentences of 5 years' imprisonment and 1 year's imprisonment, his remark describing Stotesbury's composite sentence as "5 years" necessarily meant that he intended the two sentences to be concurrent.
For this reason, I concur in the result reached by my colleagues.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|