Maguire v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 9
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kevin Maguire pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal contempt for nonpayment of child support pursuant to a plea agreement that left suspended time and probation length to the court.
- The superior court imposed a 240-day suspended jail sentence and five years of probation.
- Maguire challenged only the length of probation as excessive (he conceded the suspended sentence itself is not appealable under the statutory 120-day rule).
- This appeal raised a jurisdictional question: whether the Alaska Court of Appeals may review non-imprisonment components of misdemeanor sentences (e.g., probation) when the active imprisonment portion is less than 120 days.
- The court invited supplemental briefing on whether to overrule its prior decision in Allen v. Anchorage (which allowed such appeals) because of inconsistent unpublished decisions and a prior contrary published decision (Haggren).
- The Court of Appeals declined to overrule Allen, held it had jurisdiction to review Maguire’s probation term, and affirmed the five-year probation as not excessive given the long-term, intentional failure to pay child support and sentencing goals of deterrence, rehabilitation opportunity, and community values.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review probation term when active jail time < 120 days | Maguire: cannot appeal suspended sentence, but under Allen he can appeal probation as excessive | State: AS 12.55.120(a) bars appeals of misdemeanor sentences unless active imprisonment >120 days; Court should adopt dissent in Allen and deny jurisdiction | Court adheres to Allen; it has jurisdiction to review probation terms apart from active imprisonment threshold |
| Excessiveness of five-year probation | Maguire: 5 years is excessive given age (61), lack of criminal history, and judge’s doubt probation would aid rehabilitation | State: Probation necessary to deter, punish long-term intentional nonpayment and affirm community values; record supports findings of willful refusal to pay | Court affirms: probation not excessive; supported by findings of 15 years of intentional nonpayment and sentencing purposes (rehabilitation opportunity, deterrence, community values) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Anchorage, 168 P.3d 890 (Alaska App. 2007) (held Court of Appeals may review non-imprisonment components of misdemeanor sentences below 120-day threshold)
- Haggren v. State, 829 P.2d 842 (Alaska App. 1992) (prior published decision taking contrary view on jurisdiction)
- State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986) (standard for overruling precedent; stare decisis factors)
- Boyne v. State, 586 P.2d 1250 (Alaska 1978) (probation purpose: rehabilitate offender without confinement)
- McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974) (appellate review standard for sentences: not clearly mistaken)