NCJ Number
137711
Date Published
1991
Length
49 pages
Annotation
This article documents the development of sentence review case law in Alaska, traces the evolution of appellate sentencing law and explains its relation to presumptive sentencing and Alaska's ban on plea bargaining, and reviews how Alaska's appellate courts have supplemented and interpreted presumptive sentencing statutes.
Abstract
The Alaska Court of Appeals, which has decided over 1,100 sentence appeals since its creation in 1980, has adopted the role envisioned by the original proponents of appellate review. It routinely reduces excessive sentences to bring them in line with sentences given in comparable cases, and has created an extensive body of case law articulating appropriate sentencing principles, establishing benchmark terms for many offense categories, and developing standards on the extent to which sentences can be increased in aggravated cases. In addition, the Court of Appeals has moved to close a major loophole in the presumptive sentencing scheme by regulating total aggregate terms that may be imposed for offenders who are sentenced consecutively. The Alaska Judicial Council recommends that the State legislature, through the Alaska Sentencing Commission, examine the benchmarks established by State appellate courts to guide the discretion of judges. The council also recommends that benchmarks be examined to determine if sentencing law in certain cases would be more effectively addressed by statutes and whether benchmarks and sentencing criteria could be summarized in a way that would make them easily accessible to judges, attorneys, and the public. Disadvantages of relying too heavily on appellate review to develop sentencing principles and to fine-tune sentences are discussed, along with difficulties faced by legislatures when writing specific punishments for crimes. Appended tables reflect the statutory felony sentencing and early release structure in Alaska. 212 footnotes and 2 tables