Edward Chinuhuk, Herman Malutin, and Christopher Wasili v. State of Alaska, Edward Chinuhuk, Herman Malutin, and Christopher Wasili v. State of Alaska, Edward Chinuhuk, Herman Malutin, and Christopher Wasili v. State of Alaska, 472 P.3d 511

Background

Three petitioners (Chinuhuk, Malutin, Wasili) were convicted of sexual felonies and sentenced under former AS 12.55.125(o) (enacted 2006): mandatory suspended imprisonment plus a statutory minimum probationary term that “may not be suspended or reduced.”
Each repeatedly violated probation; courts reinstated suspended prison time until they had served the suspended portion and petitioners then moved to be discharged from probation.
Superior courts denied the motions, and the Court of Appeals (consolidated) affirmed, holding the statute created mandatory probation and that repeal did not help petitioners.
During appellate proceedings the legislature repealed AS 12.55.125(o) (S.B. 91, 2016) and later enacted substantially similar provisions (S.B. 54; H.B. 49). Petitioners argued repeal restored their right to refuse probation.
The Alaska Supreme Court granted review and held (1) probation under .125(o) was a mandatory component of the initial sentence and trial courts lacked discretion to reduce it below statutory minimums, and (2) repeal was not retroactive under Alaska’s saving statute (AS 01.10.100).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had discretion after sentencing to reduce or terminate probation once suspended time had been fully imposed	Petitioners: ordinary probation rules apply; a court cannot continue probation once all suspended time is served and therefore the court must discharge probation	State: .125(o) created a special, mandatory probation that "may not be suspended or reduced," so courts cannot terminate it even after suspended time is served	Held: Probation under .125(o) was a mandatory part of the initial sentence and trial courts lack discretion to reduce probation below statutory minimums
Whether the repeal of .125(o) (S.B. 91) applies retroactively to void petitioners’ mandatory probation	Petitioners: repeal restored the right to refuse probation; ameliorative changes should apply	State: Alaska’s saving statute prevents repeal from extinguishing penalties or altering sentences already imposed	Held: Repeal is not retroactive; AS 01.10.100 bars retroactive application to these sentences
Whether the probation imposed under .125(o) is a "penalty" or part of the sentence for saving-statute purposes	Petitioners: probation is collateral and not a penalty extinguished by repeal	State: Probation was imposed at sentencing as part of the penalty and thus saved from repeal	Held: Court treats the mandatory probation as part of the initial sentence/penalty, so it is preserved by the saving statute
Whether each probation-revocation proceeding constitutes a new sentencing that could invoke later- enacted ameliorative laws	Petitioners: each revocation is a new sentencing where ameliorative laws should apply	State: allowing that would defeat the saving statute and undermine legislative intent	Held: Revocation proceedings do not entitle petitioners to retroactive benefits; Gilligan (procedural context) does not control substantive saving-statute analysis

Key Cases Cited

Warden, Lewisburg Penitentiary v. Marrero, 417 U.S. 653 (U.S. 1974) (federal saving‑statute analysis denying benefit of post‑sentencing ameliorative change)
Gilligan v. State, 560 P.2d 17 (Alaska 1977) (probation‑revocation imposition of suspended time treated as a sentence for appellate‑review purposes)
Kelly v. State, 842 P.2d 612 (Alaska App. 1992) (when court imposes suspended time in full following violation, probation cannot be subsequently imposed)
State v. Auliye, 57 P.3d 711 (Alaska App. 2002) (legislature can mandate probation; distinguishes automatic/mandatory probation regimes)
State v. Stafford, 129 P.3d 927 (Alaska App. 2006) (discussion of applying ameliorative sentencing provisions to defendants not yet sentenced)
Helton v. State, 778 P.2d 1156 (Alaska App. 1989) (criminal penalties are imposed at sentencing)