 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Agli v. State10/10/2001
r court found that Agli had violated his probation and set disposition for February 29, 2000.
On February 23, 2000, the State amended the petition to revoke Agli's probation. The State alleged that Agli had three additional positive urine tests for cocaine in October and December of 1999 and in February of 2000, all after the first petition was filed. Agli entered an admission to the amended petition.
Agli was remanded to custody but was released to a third party pending disposition. However, Agli did not report to his probation officer when released and submitted diluted urine samples. He made little progress completing the community work service ordered as part of the sentence.
At disposition, Judge Souter recognized that Agli faced 6 years of suspended imprisonment. Judge Souter reviewed Agli's original offense. Agli's conduct on probation convinced Judge Souter that he had been mistaken about Agli's prospects for rehabilitation when he sentenced Agli originally. Judge Souter chose to emphasize Agli's isolation. He imposed the balance of Agli's suspended imprisonment.
When deciding whether to revoke a defendant's probation and impose some or all of the defendant's previously suspended jail time, a judge must evaluate all of the circumstances of the case in light of the Chaney criteria. The relevant circumstances include the defendant's original offense, the defendant's conduct on probation, and the sentences imposed on similar defendants committing similar crimes.
Although Judge Souter's discussion of the Chaney criteria is brief, it is clear that he discounted what he had originally considered the most important factor, Agli's rehabilitation, and emphasized Agli's isolation to protect the public. He concluded that Agli did not learn from the many chances he had to comply with the terms of his probation and that he had shown little motivation and had become manipulative. There are several reported cases in Alaska reviewing sentences for vehicular homicide. In Gullard v. State, the supreme court upheld a 10-year sentence for a youthful defendant (nineteen years old) who drove while intoxicated, killed four people, and was convicted of a single consolidated count of manslaughter under the former criminal code. In Sandvik v. State, the defendant was also convicted of manslaughter under the former criminal code and received a 12 year term to serve. Sandvik was driving while intoxicated when he left the road and struck and killed a bicyclist who was cycling alongside the highway. Sandvik was forty years old and had a lifelong alcohol problem. Sandvik had six convictions for driving while intoxicated, and he was pending trial on two additional DWI charges at the time of the homicide. The supreme court concluded that Sandvik's sentence was not clearly mistaken.
In Rosendahl v. State, the supreme court affirmed a 10-year term imposed for manslaughter under the former criminal code for a defendant who drove while intoxicated and killed one person. Rosendahl had two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated and five speeding convictions.
In State v. Dunlop, the supreme court affirmed Dunlop's composite 10-year term imposed by the superior court on two counts of manslaughter. Dunlop struck and killed two pedestrians while driving when he was extremely intoxicated.
In Barney v. State, we upheld a sentence of 10 years to serve for manslaughter and second-degree assault under Alaska's current criminal code. While speeding, Barney drove through a red light, struck another car, killed the driver, and seriously injured the passenger. Barney pleaded no contest to manslaughter and second-degree assault. T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|