Pike v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Pike v. State

570 P.2d 1066, 1977 Alas. LEXIS 539

CourtAlaska Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1977

Docket3062

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 570 P.2d 1066 (Pike 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

Pike v. State, 570 P.2d 1066, 1977 Alas. LEXIS 539 (Ala. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

MATTHEWS, Justice.

Appeal is taken from a 15 year concurrent sentence for four counts of armed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, a felon in possession of a weapon, and probation violation. The crimes were committed while appellant was on probation for assault with a dangerous weapon and passing a forged check. Appellant also has a prior conviction for robbery.

It is contended that (1) the trial judge needed a psychiatric report in order to be fully informed prior to passing sentence and (2) the possibility of rehabilitating defendant through a shorter sentence was not given proper weight.

We find no error. The sentencing judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation and report and had it before him at the hearing on defendant’s motion to reduce sentence. It contains no material information which was not before the court at the time the initial sentence was passed. Adams v. State, 521 P.2d 516, 519 (Alaska 1974). The judge considered rehabilitation of the defendant along with the other objectives of sentencing set forth in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 443 (Alaska 1970). In view of defendant’s prior record and rehabilitation failures, and in view of the dangerous nature of defendant’s acts, we are unable to say that improper weight was given to the goal of rehabilitation.

AFFIRMED.

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

MATTHEWS, Justice.

Appeal is taken from a 15 year concurrent sentence for four counts of armed robbery, assault with a dangerous weapon, a felon in possession of a weapon, and probation violation. The crimes were committed while appellant was on probation for assault with a dangerous weapon and passing a forged check. Appellant also has a prior conviction for robbery.

It is contended that (1) the trial judge needed a psychiatric report in order to be fully informed prior to passing sentence and (2) the possibility of rehabilitating defendant through a shorter sentence was not given proper weight.

We find no error. The sentencing judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation and report and had it before him at the hearing on defendant’s motion to reduce sentence. It contains no material information which was not before the court at the time the initial sentence was passed. Adams v. State, 521 P.2d 516, 519 (Alaska 1974). The judge considered rehabilitation of the defendant along with the other objectives of sentencing set forth in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 443 (Alaska 1970). In view of defendant’s prior record and rehabilitation failures, and in view of the dangerous nature of defendant’s acts, we are unable to say that improper weight was given to the goal of rehabilitation.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 P.2d 1066, 1977 Alas. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pike-v-state-alaska-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack