 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greist v. State9/2/2005
As explained above, it is an aggravating factor under AS 12.55.155(c)(19) that the defendant has a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication for conduct that would be a felony if committed by an adult. And, as also explained above, Greist did not dispute that he had such a delinquency adjudication. In fact, his attorney conceded that Greist had several juvenile delinquency adjudications for offenses that would have been felonies if Greist had been an adult. Therefore the record clearly establishes aggravator (c)(19).
Under Blakely, Judge Erlich was authorized to rely on this aggravator without the need for a further jury trial. And, because of this aggravator, Judge Erlich was authorized under former AS 12.55.125(k)(2) to sentence Greist to more than 2 years to serve. For these reasons, we hold that Greist's sentence does not violate Blakely.
Greist's claim that his sentence is excessive
As we noted above, Greist argues in the alternative that, even if his probation revocation sentence is legal under Blakely, that sentence is nevertheless excessive.
When he sentenced Greist following the probation revocation, Judge Erlich considered the seriousness of the original conduct that led to Greist's assault conviction. He noted that Greist was highly intoxicated when he drove the snow machine, and that Greist recklessly drove the snow machine over a cliff, inflicting severe injuries on his young passenger (and injuring himself as well). Judge Erlich further noted that Greist's blood alcohol level was .163 percent shortly after the accident. And the judge observed that, shortly before this incident, Greist had been convicted for driving while intoxicated.
Judge Erlich also considered Greist's extensive juvenile record and his failures on juvenile probation. He specifically observed that Greist had a juvenile adjudication for an offense which would have been a felony had Greist been an adult.
The judge concluded that, given the seriousness of Greist's offense and Greist's poor record, he should impose all 27 months of Greist's previously suspended jail time.
Judge Erlich's findings are supported by the record, and we conclude that these findings in turn support the sentence that he imposed. We accordingly conclude that Greist's sentence is not clearly mistaken.
Conclusion
The sentencing decision of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|