State v. Walls

Alaska Supreme Court

State v. Walls

601 P.2d 1050, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 580

CourtAlaska Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 26, 1979

DocketNo. 4127

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 601 P.2d 1050 (State v. Walls) 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

State v. Walls, 601 P.2d 1050, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 580 (Ala. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The defendant plead guilty to a charge of possession of cocaine in violation of AS 17.10.010. He was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine, to imprisonment for three years with all but seven days of that period suspended, and was placed on probation for a period of three years. The state appeals on the basis that the sentence imposed is too lenient. We think that in view of the substantial fine imposed the court was not clearly mistaken in imposing the sentence it did.

The state also contends that in determining the proper sentence to be imposed, the court should have considered evidence to the effect that the defendant was attempting to sell the cocaine which he had in his possession. The court refused to do so on the basis that the defendant was charged only with possession and not with attempted sale. In so ruling the court acted within its discretion. See Szeratics v. State, 572 P.2d 63, 66 (Alaska 1977); Galaktionoff v. State, 486 P.2d 919, 924 (Alaska 1971). See also Donlun v. State, 527 P.2d 472, 474 (Alaska 1974). The state’s other evidentiary objection was waived by stipulation below.

AFFIRMED.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The defendant plead guilty to a charge of possession of cocaine in violation of AS 17.10.010. He was sentenced to pay a $5,000 fine, to imprisonment for three years with all but seven days of that period suspended, and was placed on probation for a period of three years. The state appeals on the basis that the sentence imposed is too lenient. We think that in view of the substantial fine imposed the court was not clearly mistaken in imposing the sentence it did.

The state also contends that in determining the proper sentence to be imposed, the court should have considered evidence to the effect that the defendant was attempting to sell the cocaine which he had in his possession. The court refused to do so on the basis that the defendant was charged only with possession and not with attempted sale. In so ruling the court acted within its discretion. See Szeratics v. State, 572 P.2d 63, 66 (Alaska 1977); Galaktionoff v. State, 486 P.2d 919, 924 (Alaska 1971). See also Donlun v. State, 527 P.2d 472, 474 (Alaska 1974). The state’s other evidentiary objection was waived by stipulation below.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 P.2d 1050, 1979 Alas. LEXIS 580, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walls-alaska-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack