Tate v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Tate v. State

606 P.2d 1, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 511

CourtAlaska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 21, 1980

Docket4550

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 1 (Tate 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

Tate v. State, 606 P.2d 1, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 511 (Ala. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, Justices.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Kenneth Tate pleaded nolo conten-dere to the crime of rape. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He appeals that sentence as excessive, contending that the sentencing court failed to give adequate weight to Tate’s rehabilitation potential, that Tate is not a “worst possible offender,” Waters v. State, 483 P.2d 199, 201 (Alaska 1971), and that the court did not adequately consider the psychiatric report and other information about Tate’s past behavior.

Tate’s arguments are refuted by the record. Since 1968 Tate has been engaged in a constant course of antisocial conduct. His adult criminal convictions in Ohio include grand larceny, escape, a probation violation, and possession of marijuana. As a juvenile, he was adjudicated delinquent in Ohio on several occasions. While in military service he was convicted of several offenses by court martial, and was finally given an undesirable discharge. Moreover, at the time the present offense was committed Tate was out on bail pending extradition to the State of Washington for trial on eleven counts of forgery. Tate is also wanted by the State of Ohio for “absconding from probation.”

The rape for which he was sentenced here was committed in a calculated and cruel manner. It appears that Tate’s initial purpose in entering the victim’s apartment was to steal a large amount of rent receipts which he thought would be found there. Once in the apartment, however, he held the victim at knifepoint and, in addition to the rape, robbed her of what was in her pocketbook.

Tate has stated that, “unless I’m motivated into a drastic change I see no other means of self-support, but to a life of crime.” The psychiatric report prepared in *2 connection with the sentencing proceeding in this case shows Tate as having an antisocial personality, and there is little prospect that his pattern of behavior can be readily altered.

We have repeatedly denounced rape as a most serious offense warranting a significant punishment. Post v. State, 580 P.2d 304, 309 (Alaska 1978); State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 446 (Alaska 1970). It is our conclusion that in imposing this sentence the superior court was not clearly mistaken. 1 McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).

AFFIRMED.

1

. We note in this regard that under AS 11.15.130(c) Tate could have been sentenced to 20 years in the state penitentiary.

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

OPINION

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, Justices.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Kenneth Tate pleaded nolo conten-dere to the crime of rape. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He appeals that sentence as excessive, contending that the sentencing court failed to give adequate weight to Tate’s rehabilitation potential, that Tate is not a “worst possible offender,” Waters v. State, 483 P.2d 199, 201 (Alaska 1971), and that the court did not adequately consider the psychiatric report and other information about Tate’s past behavior.

Tate’s arguments are refuted by the record. Since 1968 Tate has been engaged in a constant course of antisocial conduct. His adult criminal convictions in Ohio include grand larceny, escape, a probation violation, and possession of marijuana. As a juvenile, he was adjudicated delinquent in Ohio on several occasions. While in military service he was convicted of several offenses by court martial, and was finally given an undesirable discharge. Moreover, at the time the present offense was committed Tate was out on bail pending extradition to the State of Washington for trial on eleven counts of forgery. Tate is also wanted by the State of Ohio for “absconding from probation.”

The rape for which he was sentenced here was committed in a calculated and cruel manner. It appears that Tate’s initial purpose in entering the victim’s apartment was to steal a large amount of rent receipts which he thought would be found there. Once in the apartment, however, he held the victim at knifepoint and, in addition to the rape, robbed her of what was in her pocketbook.

Tate has stated that, “unless I’m motivated into a drastic change I see no other means of self-support, but to a life of crime.” The psychiatric report prepared in *2 connection with the sentencing proceeding in this case shows Tate as having an antisocial personality, and there is little prospect that his pattern of behavior can be readily altered.

We have repeatedly denounced rape as a most serious offense warranting a significant punishment. Post v. State, 580 P.2d 304, 309 (Alaska 1978); State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 446 (Alaska 1970). It is our conclusion that in imposing this sentence the superior court was not clearly mistaken. 1 McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).

AFFIRMED.

1

. We note in this regard that under AS 11.15.130(c) Tate could have been sentenced to 20 years in the state penitentiary.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 P.2d 1, 1980 Alas. LEXIS 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-state-alaska-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack