Peterson v. State

487 P.2d 682, 1971 Alas. LEXIS 212
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 29, 1971
Docket1432
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 487 P.2d 682 (Peterson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peterson v. State, 487 P.2d 682, 1971 Alas. LEXIS 212 (Ala. 1971).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On September 29, 1970, appellant plead guilty to the charge of burglary in a dwelling at nighttime in violation of AS 11.20.-080, which is punishable under the facts of this case by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than IS years. From a sentence imposed by the trial court of five years with two years’ probation, appellant makes this appeal.

A review of the appellant’s background as shown in the pre-sentence report and at the hearing for entry of plea and sentencing shows that appellant, in previous encounters with the law, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and several driving offenses. 1 Additionally, appellant stated at the time of entry of plea of guilty that he had been using drugs at the time of this offense.

While appellant’s home background appears good and he possesses above-normal intelligence, his employment history is erratic and his willingness to satisfactorily conform to the requirements of society appears somewhat speculative. Under these circumstances, we cannot say the sentence was outside the zone of reasonableness set forth in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970), and therefore the sentence is affirmed.

DIMOND, J., not participating.
1

. In our opinions in Waters v. State, 483 P.2d 199 (Alaska 1971) and Robinson v. State, 484 P.2d 686 (Alaska 1971), which were decided after the date of this sentencing, we cautioned against placing reliance on previous “contacts” with the police. We feel constrained herein to note again that mention was made of “contacts” by the trial court and again caution against the reliance on such information in the sentencing process.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alexander v. State
611 P.2d 469 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1980)
Evans v. State
550 P.2d 830 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1976)
State v. Trunnel
549 P.2d 550 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1976)
Deveroux v. State
548 P.2d 1296 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1976)
Donlun v. State
527 P.2d 472 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1974)
Lemon v. State
522 P.2d 160 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1974)
McClain v. State
519 P.2d 811 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1974)
Avery v. State
514 P.2d 637 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1973)
Mattern v. State
500 P.2d 228 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1972)
Griggs v. State
494 P.2d 795 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1972)
Robinson v. State
492 P.2d 106 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 P.2d 682, 1971 Alas. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-state-alaska-1971.