 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Olson v. State4/21/1999
fered several acts of vandalism. Although they did not know for sure that Olson was the culprit, they noted that this vandalism had ceased when Olson was put in jail.
After reviewing Olson's record, Judge Motyka concluded that " he need to confine this defendant to prevent further harm to the public obvious" and that rehabilitation was but "a distant hope" in Olson's case. The Judge noted that, in the present case, Olson had run away from his third-party custodian and had started stalking M.J. - conduct similar to the criminal conduct underlying Olson's 1995 offenses.
Based on Olson's present criminal conduct and his past history, Judge Motyka concluded that Olson was a "worst offender" for sentencing purposes. To deter Olson, to isolate him from the public, and to express community condemnation of Olson's conduct, Judge Motyka sentenced Olson to serve the maximum term (365 days) for his new offense and to serve all of the remaining suspended jail time (485 days) from his 1995 offenses.
On appeal, Olson argues that Judge Motyka acted precipitously when he concluded that Olson could not be rehabilitated or deterred by a lesser sentence. Olson contends that he has never been given a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation. Olson further contends that, although he may have a lengthy criminal record, there is still reason to believe that a lesser sentence would be sufficient to deter him from future criminal conduct.
Olson has an extensive history of criminal offenses. Time and again, Olson has been convicted of crimes, only to renew his criminal activity upon his release. Several of Olson's offenses involve harassment of and threats against girlfriends and their families. Indeed, Olson was on probation for just such conduct when he committed his present offense. (Olson was also on felony bail release.) This record provides a reasonable basis for Judge Motyka's Conclusions that Olson's rehabilitation was "a distant hope" and that only Olson's imprisonment would guarantee the public safety.
Olson also argues that, even if his prospects for rehabilitation and deterrence are poor, the conduct underlying his present offense is not particularly egregious. Olson points out that there are much worse, much more dangerous methods of violating a domestic violence protective order. This is true. However, a sentencing Judge's finding of "worst offender" can be based on the facts of the defendant's present offense, or on the defendant's criminal history, or both. A long history of misdemeanor offenses can establish a defendant as a "worst offender" for sentencing purposes.
A sentencing Judge has primary responsibility for determining the weight and priority to be accorded the various sentencing goals under the facts of a particular case. Moreover, our supreme court has declared that, for any given offense and offender, there exists a range of reasonable sentences that might properly be imposed. To obtain reversal of a sentence on appeal, a defendant must show that their sentence is outside this range of reasonable sentences, and thus "clearly mistaken". Having independently examined the record in this case, we conclude that Olson's sentence is not clearly mistaken.
The sentencing decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|