 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Benton v. State10/24/2001
rve), and that he would be subject to open sentencing in the probation revocation. However, aside from the plea agreement, AS 12.55.025(e) required the superior court to impose Benton's probation revocation sentence consecutively to the sentence Benton received for his new crimes.
When a probationer commits new crimes and is sentenced both for the new crimes and the related violation of probation, "the pertinent question is ... whether the composite term ... is justified under the totality of the circumstances." Or, as we said in Moya v. State, 769 P.2d 447, 449 (Alaska App. 1989):
When revocation of probation is based on the commission of a new crime and the defendant is simultaneously sentenced for both the previous and more recent offenses, ... the court must consider the appropriateness of its sentencing decision as a whole: in addition to deciding whether there is good cause for the imposition of some period of consecutive time, the court must specifically determine that the composite sentence it elects to impose is justified under the totality of the circumstances.
This principle - that the true question is the appropriateness of the defendant's composite sentence - is especially applicable in Benton's case. Benton negotiated a plea agreement that specified the sentence he would receive for his current crimes (9 years with 3 years suspended). Because Benton received the sentence he bargained for, he has no legal right to appeal that sentence by itself. Rather, Benton can argue only that his composite sentence (the combination of sentences for his current crimes and his probation revocation) is excessive.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|