 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Glaser v. State12/12/2001
ntence, those reasons cannot go unspoken.
Precisely because sentencing is an individualized process, the sentencing court has an obligation to explain its reasons for selecting a particular sentence. State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). A sentencing judge who perceives unique circumstances warranting a unique sentence must identify those circumstances and explain their significance in relation to the established goals of sentencing in terms that can be understood by the defendant, the prosecutor, and the public:
At a minimum, ... the principle of reasonable sentencing uniformity requires a sentencing judge who decides that an offender deserves a sentence which is significantly different from sentences previously given to similarly situated offenders to expressly find some legitimate basis for the difference - some basis related to "legally relevant sentencing criteria." That basis should be spelled out on the sentencing record, so that the defendant and a reviewing court can understand the reasons for the disparity. Williams v. State, 809 P.2d 931, 935 (Alaska App. 1991) (citation omitted). Hernandez, 877 P.2d 1309, 1316 (Alaska App. 1994).
For these reasons, I agree with my colleagues that we should remand Glaser's case to the superior court so that Judge Link may clarify his reasons for imposing a sentence of 55 years with 33 years suspended.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|