 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. State3/18/1998
MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT
John M. Adams pleaded no contest to criminal mischief in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor, and theft in the fourth degree, a class B misdemeanor. AS 11.46.484(a)(1); AS 11.46.150. District Court Judge James N. Wanamaker sentenced Adams to 360 days with 60 days suspended for the criminal mischief conviction. (Adams also was sentenced to 90 days with 60 days suspended for the theft conviction.) Adams appeals his sentence for the criminal mischief count. We affirm.
Adams's convictions were for an incident on December 21, 1996. On that date, Adams and a companion went to a Fred Meyer store in Anchorage. As the companion stood to block Adams from view, Adams broke open a vending machine with a screwdriver and crowbar. When a security agent for the store saw them, Adams and the companion fled, but were soon caught. When apprehended, Adams had on his person ten dollars' worth of quarters, along with some keys, change, screws, and the crowbar and screwdriver.
Adams has an extensive criminal history of prior convictions, including many for theft-related offenses: in 1996, larceny and damage to property; in 1995, driving without a license; in 1994, two larceny convictions, three convictions for damage to property, and one shoplifting conviction; in 1992, criminal trespass; in 1985, two convictions for driving without a license; in 1983, driving while intoxicated; in 1977, felony larceny and burglary (for which Adams had been sentenced to 3 years with 1 year suspended); and in 1976, concealing stolen property. The 1996 convictions were for a similar incident to the one in this case and had occurred only four months earlier: Adams had broken into another store's vending machine with a crowbar and screwdriver, and was found with his pockets stuffed with quarters. Adams had been sentenced for those convictions to 75 days for theft and to 60 days with 30 days suspended for criminal mischief.
Judge Wanamaker found that Adams's offenses in this case were "extremely brazen" and that Adams's numerous previous convictions for similar crimes involving theft and damage to property convinced the Judge that Adams was a worst offender. The Judge stated that deterrence and isolation were important factors and found that only a lengthy period of incarceration would protect the public from further similar crimes by Adams. Judge Wanamaker stated that, by suspending a portion of the sentence, he had "built in a little bit of rehabilitation" by encouraging Adams to avoid the suspended portion of the full sentence by changing his future conduct. Judge Wanamaker added that the sentence also comported with societal norms.
Adams's only contention on appeal is that Judge Wanamaker erred by finding that he was a "worst offender" based solely on Adams's criminal history. Adams argues that his criminal history is insufficient to clearly establish that he is incorrigible or incapable of rehabilitation so that a "worst offender" finding would be justified. This contention is without merit. First, in addition to noting Adams's criminal history, Judge Wanamaker found that Adams's current offense was "extremely brazen," and the record supports this finding. A "worst offender" finding can be based on the circumstances of the present offense, on the defendant's criminal history, or both. See Sakeagak v. State, ____ P.2d ____, Op. No. 1568 at 13 (Alaska App., January 9, 1998). Second, it is well settled that a long history of repeated misdemeanor convictions will justify a finding that a misdemeanant is a "worst offender" within that class. See State v. Graybill, 695 P.2d 725, 731 (Alaska 1985); Downs v. State, 872 P.2d 1229, 1231 (Alaska App. 1994); Pointer v. Anchora
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|