 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greist v. State10/7/2005
re of the aggravating factors listed in AS 12.55.155(c) or extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165.
In advance of Greist's sentencing, the State gave notice that an aggravating factor applied to Greist's case - Greist's "prior criminal history include an adjudication as a delinquent for conduct that would have been a felony if committed by an adult."
Greist did not dispute this aggravating factor. In fact, at the sentencing hearing, the defense attorney conceded that Greist had several juvenile delinquency adjudications for offenses that would have been felonies if Greist had been an adult. However, Greist's attorney asked the court not to place great weight on this aggravating factor, since Greist had never spent a prolonged period of time in custody as a result of these delinquency adjudications.
Superior Court Judge Richard H. Erlich did not address this proposed aggravating factor when he imposed sentence. Instead, he sentenced Greist to less than the statutory ceiling: 36 months with 27 months suspended.
After serving these 9 months, Greist was placed on probation for three years. Shortly thereafter, the State filed petitions to revoke Greist's probation (for failing to report to his probation officer and for failing to complete a substance abuse treatment program).
Three weeks later, Greist was arrested for unlawfully bringing alcoholic beverages into Kotzebue by airplane. At a subsequent bench trial, Greist was found guilty of transporting alcoholic beverages by common carrier (a class A misdemeanor) and making a false report (a class A misdemeanor).
On January 14, 2004, the State filed yet another petition to revoke Greist's probation from the third-degree assault conviction. This petition alleged that Greist had violated his probation by failing to complete the substance abuse program, by possessing alcoholic beverages, and by violating state law (based on Greist's recent convictions for transporting alcoholic beverages and making a false report).
On June 24, 2004 (coincidentally, the day on which Blakely was issued), Judge Erlich held a hearing on the State's petition to revoke Greist's probation. At that hearing, Greist admitted the alleged violations of probation.
Judge Erlich concluded that Greist's violations of probation required revocation of his probation. And, based on the facts of Greist's original offense, his prior record, and his conduct while on probation, Judge Erlich further concluded that he should impose all of Greist's previously suspended 27 months of imprisonment.
In his sentencing remarks, Judge Erlich expressly noted that one of the aggravated features of Greist's case was Greist's juvenile record - in particular, the fact that Greist had a delinquency adjudication for conduct that would have been a felony if Greist had been an adult:
The Court: On a petition to revoke probation, I look at the nature of the [original] charges, [the defendant's] conduct while on probation, and ... the original sentencing criteria.
Mr. Greist has admitted to violations of the law ... . there was ... consumption of alcohol [while on probation].
He was [originally] convicted of an assault in the third degree ... . He has a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated in 2002. He has a juvenile adjudication for an offense which would have been a felony.
Given the nature of his juvenile record - and it ... seems, I'm sorry to say, that there are not long gaps between those [juvenile] incidents and what's happening in his adult life - I [must consider] protection of the public as my primary sentencing goal.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|