 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Torgramsen v. State6/9/1999
that was limited to one year and that the sentencing goals would not be served by such a sentence.
On the state case for the assaults on Phillips, Judge Finn sentenced Torgramsen to 360 days with 240 days suspended for the first count of assault and 365 days with no days suspended for the second count. On the probation revocation from the November 1996 municipal assault charge, Judge Finn imposed the suspended 150 days. On the probation revocation from the June 1996 municipal case, Judge Finn imposed 90 of the suspended days on the DWI count and 30 of the suspended days on each of the other four counts. Judge Finn also remanded Torgramsen to serve the 150 days - 30 days on each count - that had been imposed as a result of the February 1998 probation revocation. Thus, Judge Finn imposed a net 845 days to serve.
Torgramsen argues that this sentence is excessive. First, Torgramsen claims that Judge Finn automatically reinstated all his previously suspended time without considering the nature and circumstances of his original offenses. We disagree. Judge Finn imposed only part of the suspended time on Torgramsen's first municipal case. Judge Finn discussed Torgramsen's prior municipal offenses at length. And Judge Finn considered the totality of Torgramsen's offenses and background and imposed only part of the time suspended in the first municipal case.
Torgramsen also argues that his sentences on the individual counts for the June 1996 case are excessive when considered individually for those specific offenses. However, when a defendant is simultaneously sentenced for multiple convictions, the reviewing court does not view each conviction in isolation; instead, we must look at the totality of the defendant's conduct measured in light of the totality of his background in determining an appropriate overall sentence. Therefore, the question before this court is whether Judge Finn's decision to impose two years and 115 days to serve is clearly mistaken given the totality of Torgramsen's conduct. Torgramsen argues that a composite sentence of over a year to serve was clearly mistaken.
Judge Finn found that Torgramsen was a "worst offender" for the assault that broke the bones in Tamara Phillips' face. A worst-offender finding can be based on the circumstances of the present offense, on the defendant's criminal history, or both. Also, a long history of repeated misdemeanor convictions can justify a finding that a misdemeanant is a "worst offender" within that class. Torgramsen does not challenge the worst-offender finding in this appeal.
A worst-offender finding will justify the imposition of the maximum sentence for that offense. Here, for all the cases before her, Judge Finn imposed a composite term to serve of almost two years and four months; substantially in excess of one year. A trial Judge imposing a composite sentence greater than the maximum sentence for the defendant's most serious offense must expressly find that the sentence is necessary to protect the public. Judge Finn did not make that explicit finding. But we conclude that Judge Finn's findings implicitly established that the defendant posed an extreme danger of future misconduct. Judge Finn found that Torgramsen was likely to continue his assaultive conduct. Judge Finn also found that Torgramsen's repeated failures to pursue court-ordered treatment showed that he had little potential for rehabilitation. And Judge Finn found that Trogramsen was a dangerous offender.
Torgramsen's current offenses, in which he assaulted and seriously injured Phillips, were only the latest in a string of domestic violence assaults against women going back to the beginning of Torgramsen's adulthood. Torgr
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|