State v. Fyfe, 370 P.3d 1092

Linden Fyfe was stopped on a highway designated a traffic safety corridor and convicted of felony DUI under AS 28.35.030 after a breath test showed 0.117% BAC.
The superior court imposed a $20,000 fine at sentencing, applying AS 28.90.030(a), which doubles “the fine, or maximum fine” for violations of Title 28 committed within a highway work zone or traffic safety corridor; the statutory minimum for felony DUI is $10,000.
Fyfe appealed, arguing the statute was not intended to double fines for criminal offenses like felony DUI; the Court of Appeals vacated the $20,000 fine, reading legislative history to limit the statute to noncriminal traffic offenses.
The State petitioned for review; the Alaska Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether AS 28.90.030(a) applies to criminal offenses and whether it doubles statutory minimum fines.
The Supreme Court held that (1) the plain language of AS 28.90.030(a) covers violations of Title 28 generally, including criminal offenses, because contrary legislative history was insufficient to overcome the statute’s clear wording; and (2) the statute does not double statutorily-prescribed minimum fines, because the phrase “the fine, or maximum fine” excludes minimum fines by ordinary grammatical construction and expressio unius.
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ result vacating Fyfe’s $20,000 fine but on different grounds, and remanded for imposition of the $10,000 statutory minimum fine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does AS 28.90.030(a) apply to criminal offenses in Title 28 (e.g., felony DUI)?	State: Plain language covers any "provision of this title," so it applies to criminal offenses.	Fyfe: Legislative history shows intent to apply only to noncriminal traffic violations.	The statute’s plain language covers both criminal and noncriminal Title 28 offenses; contrary legislative history is not sufficiently convincing.
Does AS 28.90.030(a) double statutory minimum fines set by Title 28?	State: "Fine" includes minimum fines; doubling should apply to minimums too.	Fyfe: Minimum fines should not be doubled; statute intended to address set fines and maximums.	The phrase "the fine, or maximum fine" excludes minimum fines; AS 28.90.030(a) does not double statutory minimum fines.
Can legislative history overcome plain statutory text here?	Fyfe: Yes; committee testimony and amendments indicate limited scope.	State: No; legislative history is ambiguous and insufficient to override plain language.	Court applies sliding-scale canon: plain language governs unless very persuasive contrary history exists; here history is not convincing.
Remedy for Fyfe’s excessive fine?	Fyfe: Vacate doubled fine and impose statutory minimum.	State: Maintain doubled fine under AS 28.90.030(a).	Court vacated $20,000 fine and remanded to impose the $10,000 statutory minimum.

Alaska Judicial Council v. Kruse, 331 P.3d 375 (Alaska 2014) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo and courts apply a sliding-scale approach to plain meaning versus legislative history)
Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 333 P.3d 5 (Alaska 2014) (quotation of sliding-scale canon: plainer the language, more convincing contrary legislative history must be)
State v. Alex, 646 P.2d 203 (Alaska 1982) (noting weight given to clear statutory language over contrary legislative history)
Univ. of Alaska v. Geistauts, 666 P.2d 424 (Alaska 1983) (same-court discussion of burdens when legislative history conflicts with clear text)
State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970) (sentence must effectuate reformation, express community condemnation, reaffirm norms, and reflect wrongdoing)