Grant v. State, 379 P.3d 993

Tristan Jamall Grant was on state probation for fourth-degree controlled-substance misconduct when he committed a new federal offense.
The state probation officer filed a petition to revoke Grant’s state probation.
While the revocation was pending, a federal court sentenced Grant to 6 months’ imprisonment for the new federal crime.
The superior court revoked Grant’s probation and imposed 2 months of previously suspended jail time; it initially ordered that 2-month term to run concurrently with the federal sentence.
The superior court later concluded that under AS 12.55.127(a) the probation-revocation term must be consecutive to an existing sentence, amended the judgment to make the 2 months consecutive, and Grant petitioned for review claiming a double jeopardy violation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the original concurrent sentence was legally erroneous because the statute requires consecutive sentencing when revocation follows commission of a new crime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the superior court’s amendment increasing Grant’s probation-revocation sentence from concurrent to consecutive violated double jeopardy	Grant: converting the sentence to consecutive increased an already-imposed sentence and thus violated double jeopardy	State: the original concurrent order was legally erroneous under AS 12.55.127(a); an illegally lenient sentence can be corrected without double jeopardy problems	Held: No double jeopardy violation; the court may correct an illegal (lenient) sentence and AS 12.55.127(a) requires consecutiveness here
Whether AS 12.55.127(a) applies when the new crime is a federal offense	Grant: statute should not apply to crimes of other jurisdictions because it does not explicitly mention federal or out-of-state crimes; invoke rule of lenity	State: statute applies broadly to existing judgments for separate terms of imprisonment, and legislative purpose supports consecutive punishment regardless of jurisdiction	Held: Statute applies to federal offenses; rule of lenity inapplicable because statutory intent is ascertainable and a common-sense reading includes new crimes in other jurisdictions

Smith v. State, 892 P.2d 202 (Alaska App. 1995) (illegal sentences may be corrected upward to cure illegality)
Wells v. State, 706 P.2d 711 (Alaska App. 1985) (probation-revocation sentence based on a new crime must be consecutive to sentence for that new crime)
Jackson v. State, 31 P.3d 105 (Alaska App. 2001) (reaffirming that sentences for new crimes and probation revocation must be consecutive; concurrent sentence was illegal)
Sonnier v. State, 483 P.2d 1003 (Alaska 1971) (double jeopardy principle that increases to a meaningfully imposed sentence violate constitutional protections)
Byford v. State, 352 P.3d 898 (Alaska App. 2015) (discussing limits on correcting illegally lenient sentences)