*2 BRYNER, C.J., Before COATS and SINGLETON, JJ.
OPINION
0BRYNER,
Judge.
Chief
Kiven Collins
by jury
was convicted
four counts of
murder and one
count
attempted first-degree
murder.
Superior
Judge
Buckalew, Jr.,
Court
S. J.
sentenced Collins to consecutive terms to-
taling
prison.
appeals,
contending that
the trial court erred in
I
sever
of the maintains that the trial
denying his motion to
Count
court erred in fail-
indictment,
refusing
suppress
grant
ing
his motion for severance. Col-
fession,
admitting
sepa-
lins
that Count
related to a
complains
Collins also
misconduct.
improperly joined.
incident and
rate
We affirm.
sentence is excessive.
also
even if
proper
He
it was
join
state
first
5, 1986,
Kiven Collins shot
*3
instance,
prejudice resulting from join-
the
separate
Miranda.
In a
and killed Melvin
We find no
der
severance.
merit
following
August
day,
incident on the
arguments.
to these
Macon,
Paulino,
Lisa
Julio
Fan-
Collins shot
Patterson,
Only
nie
and Carlos Gomez.
governed by
Joinder of offenses
Alas-
Gomez survived.
8(a),
provides:
ka Criminal Rule
which
shortly after
police
arrested Collins
Joinder
or more of-
Two
of Offenses.
po-
shooting.
gave
the
the second
may
charged
fenses
in-
the same
August
the
lice a detailed account
both
separate
dictment or information in a
August 6 incidents. Collins had been
and
count for each offense if the offenses
orga-
an
in the
echelons of
involved
lower
felonies,
charged, whether
misdemeanors
in Anchor-
ring
nized
of cocaine traffickers
both,
or
are of the same or similar char-
Collins,
According
of the lead-
age.
to
two
acter or
or
are based
the same act
ring,
man
of the
Javier and a
ers
Juan
or
transaction or on two more acts or
“Nunes,”
promised
pay
Col-
named
together or
transactions connected
$25,000
Miranda,
to kill
who was
lins
stituting parts of a common scheme or
agreed to
charge
group.
of a rival
plan.
job
August
5.
do the
and killed Miranda
In
all of
the
Collins’ offenses
following day,
apart-
an
Collins visited
character,”
“of the same or similar
were
persons
ment
associated
which several
namely,
attempted
murder and
murder.
present. Among
drug ring
his
were
clearly
significantly, they
“con-
More
were
Macon, Paulino,
present were
Patter-
those
Although
together.”
the offenses
nected
son,
he
claimed that
and Gomez. Collins
incidents,
separate
out
two
arose
conversations that
led him to
overheard
only
day apart
incidents occurred
and
organization
of his
believe that members
intimately
only disputed
related. The
Collins told
were
wanted Collins dead.
Patterson,
Macon, Paulino,
pertained
Au-
he
case
shot
issues Collins’
they
shootings.
gust
and Gomez because he was afraid that
Under either the state’s
about to kill him.
or Collins’ version of
second
version
August
incident,
first incident—the
incidents,
shooting
As a result
the two
Under
shooting Miranda —was crucial.
charged
four
state
Collins with
counts
versions,
shootings re-
August
both
first-degree murder and one count
go-
he
from
belief that
sulted
first-degree murder.
role in the
ing to be killed because
theory of Miranda murder con-
state’s
Consequently, knowledge
August 5 crime.
The state’s
formed to Collins’ confession.
shooting
indispensable
theory
August 6
at-
of the
murders and
understanding
of Au-
to an
events
thought
tempted murder was
gust 6.
ring
drug
members
participation
planned
kill him due
temporal
circumstan-
the close
Given
killing and
in the Miranda
decided
relationship
the offense
tial
between
opportu-
had an
shoot them before
offenses
charged in Count I and the
plan.
nity
carry
out their
of the
charged
subsequent counts
indictment,
per-
joinder
Prior to
Collins moved to sever
8(a).
Criminal Rule
missible under
indictment, charging the
Count
(Alas-
Miranda,
Maynard v.
Melvin
from
August 5 murder of
State, ka
Davidson
remaining
superior counts. The
App.1982).
1390 n. 8
appeal,
denied
motion.
separately inquire
must
whether
used
him at trial. The issue of
presents
question
severance should
ordered even voluntariness
a mixed
though
involving
joined
three-step inquiry.
offenses were
fact
law
requires
governed
step
first instance. Severance is
The first
a determination of
by
pro
Rule
Alaska Criminal
the historical facts
the confes
primarily
vides:
sion
for the trial court.
judge’s
will
trial
reverse a
factual find
appears
If
or
defendant
when
erroneous.
prejudiced by
joinder of
state is
of-
steps
inquiry,
second and third
or
fenses
in an
defendants
indictment
duty
court “has a
to examine the entire
joinder
or
such
information or
its
independent
record
own
deter
together,
may
the court
order
minations as
mental state of the
counts,
or separate
election
trials of
legal significance.”
State
accused and grant
defendants,
pro-
or
a severance of
Ridgely,
justice
vide whatever other relief
re-
*4
quires.
dispute
There
concerning
is little
the ba-
sic facts
Collins’ confession.
suggests
Collins
that automatic sever-
arrest,
Upon
police
Collins
to the
was taken
granted
under Ste-
ance
should
station and informed of his
State,
Miranda
621,
vens v.
(Alaska
582 P.2d
629
rights. Following
colloquy,
State,
1978).
brief
also
See
P.2d
Velez
762
signed
agreed
a written waiver
State,
(Alaska
and
Johnson v.
1297
speak with
police.
The entire
(Alaska
inter-
App.1986).
Moreover, was control of his indicated, already as we have faculties, capable understanding and and evidence of Collins’ role the Miranda answering questions the various that were murder would have been admissible put interview, to him. At the close of separate remaining when asked if was against he under the influence him to his mo- establish drugs or liquor, Collins stated al tive. See Dorman v. though drink, he had a had little to Ladd understood everything that had occurred. Given the rele- vance of the Miranda it incum- was challenges Collins also his voluntari upon specific bent Collins make questions ness based on a series that he convincing showing prejudice before sev- interview, asked the outset before required. erance be He made no signing rights. a written waiver Col See Cleveland v. showing. such questions lins contends that his reflect his (Alaska 1974); Montes v. confusion understanding and lack of con (Alaska App. cerning rights. his Miranda disagree. conclude trial court did questions not relate to Collin’s Mi denying not err in Collins’motion to sever. Rather, randa rights. Collins asked for Collins next contends his confession information about nature the evi involuntary and should not police have been dence that him. The him apart- disclose him that she would call police understandably declined to later at investigation apartment re- number 110 specifics of ment [the shootings could not peatedly advised Collins occurred].” case unless substance discuss appeal, that Bales’ his Miranda and until Collins waived “police report” reference to her tanta agreed to a waiv- rights. sign Collins then prior mount to evidence of a act on bad view, transcript our of this er. part that it Collins’ should have been does indicate portion of the interview under excluded Alaska Rule of Evidence part significant confusion 404(b). See Lerchenstein concerning rights. of his nature (Alaska App.1985), aff'd, (Alaska 1986). totality of independent review of the At how Our ever, Ba object us that the state met Collins’ counsel did the record convinces it establishing that statement or move that stricken. les’ burden intelligent, Moreover, knowing, particularly light vol- over fession whelming guilt, Sprague See evidence of Collins’ untary. impact prejudicial disputed Admission state Assuming negligible, was not error. ment was at most. confession allowing error was committed in the officer additionally contends that report, refer to her falls the error testi trial court erred when allowed of plain far short error. Alaska concerning at trial a domestic vio mony 47(b). R.Crim.P. girlfriend made on the lence call *5 shootings. Eight morning August 6 Collins’ final contention is that shootings, prior August 6 Offi is For his convic hours the sentence excessive. four dispatched to a do first-degree Michelle Bales was re cer tions of Collins complaint by violence filed Collins’ mestic four consecutive maximum sen ceived J.W., girlfriend, apartment in lived an re ninety-nine years. who of Collins tences apartment the in complex seven-year in the same as consecutive ceived an additional shootings At the occurred. attempted which mur term conviction testify Bales that she Officer was called years. total is der. His sentence thus apart at met with J.W. and Collins J.W.’s imposition maximum Collins that wearing ment and saw that Collins was clearly mistak sentences was consecutive in his similar to those later found shoes points out that a maximum Collins en. on Ba apartment with human blood them. generally for a worst is reserved sentence testify heard les was also called that she State, 207, 210 v. offender. Hintz say that could reach him at the J.W. (Alaska He contends apartment shootings where the later oc record, he prior not a criminal he did curred. qualify not as a worst offender. does testified, Bales coun- Before Collins’trial no to Collins’ contention. find merit testimony prej- objected her would sel that finding may based A offender be worst she disclosed that udice background, the crime defendant’s a violence the incident domestic caused convicted, or the defendant The police. call the prompted J.W. to that Hintz, In the both. prosecutor court the cir- assured the that circumstances surround- the presence Bales’ leading to cumstances justified a worst ing plainly crimes apartment be mentioned. finding. All of Collins’ offenses offender testify. permitted to Bales was thereafter large-scale, context arose within the engaged enterprise ongoing criminal that testimony, In course of her Bales slay- trafficking. August 5 in cocaine her complaint that led to not discuss ing Melvin Miranda was cold-blooded point Collins. At one contact with J.W. and however, multiple testimony, to murder hire. she did refer in her day following report my murder of the incident: “From her kill- in the aftermath Miranda’s police report, her had told occurred it—it was that State, reprehensible. (Alaska ing equally Col- v. and were 1983), attempt justify 6 shoot- v. lins’ necessary protect (Alaska being App.1987), himself as Krukoff (Alaska utterly implausible. sentencing App.1985), apparently shot substantially found that Collins undermined court sleep, simply of his victims two Jackson v.
eliminate
witnesses
him.
become
Jackson,
court
appro-
sidered
a trial
totality
whether
court could
Given
circumstances
crimes,
priately impose
unusually
sentencing
an
severe sen-
restricting
person’s
tence as a
that Collins
means
court
concluded
parole
offender,
eligibility.
pa-
The court
extremely dangerous
held that
an
role
are
considerations
consecutive sentences
irrelevant
fashioning
However,
a sentence.
protection
society. Despite
case for the
expressed
speculation
only twenty-six
fact that
concern
about
parole might
age
result
an
at the time
the offenses
excessive
felony record,
tence. 616
25-26.
prior
totality
had no
P.2d at
The court there-
fore
places
par
him on a
concluded:
other offenders who have committed multi-
correct approach
believe the
is for
ple
murders and for whom
the sentencing judge
impose
appro-
maximum consecutive sentences have been
priate
incarceration, considering
term of
See,
approved.
Nukapigak
e.g.,
the Chaney
Chaney,
criteria
[State
P.2d 943
(Alaska 1970)],
as-
(Alaska App.1987).
Collins was old at A twenty-six-year- time he was sentenced. expectancy approxi- old man has a life SINGLETON, Judge, concurring. years. mately forty-four See American I agree with the majority’s treatment of Insurance, Council of Life Insurance Life most of the troubled, issues. I am how- (1984). Fact Book 92-93 will ever, by the sentence this case. years. unusually long serve 403 This Kiven Collins was convicted of four imposed simply tence to ensure counts of murder and one parole during eligible would not be of attempted count murder. The maximum remainder of life. His sentence thus is sentence for degree murder in first is possibility parole. a life sentence without ninety-nine years. 12.55.125(a). Jackson, AS Col- light the trial court should lins received the maximum sentences allow- simply imposed ninety-nine-year for the first-degree able murder and, convic- Col- appropriate, sentence if restricted All consecutively tions. were to run for a then parole. lins’ restriction should Such ninety-six total three years. hundred and justified on the record. See have been He also presumptive received a (Alas- consecutive Newell v. 876-77 seven-year (discussing pa- mur- App.1989) ka limitations on Thus, charge. der role); Collins received a com- 764 P.2d Lawrence posite years. sentence of Qualle While App.1988); support sentence finds some in Nukapigak is the con- Nukapigak To the extent 1371, 1377-78 State, 642 P.2d
Spencer
trary, I would find that
it conflicts with
(Alaska App.1982).
Jackson,1
I realize that
court Nuka-
judgment
I
I
concur
be-
multiple
seems to treat
pigak
consecutive
lieve the trial court
this case
life sentences without
life sentences
findings
necessary
to warrant a sen-
parole
synonymous
as
possibility of
imprisonment
possibil-
tence of life
without
court.
It
the trial
optional with
therefore
ity
parole.
I
this result
some
reach
me, however,
permitting mul-
seems
felony
is a first
reluctance because Collins
no one could ever
tiple life sentences
imprisoned
offender who has never been
encourages
trial
simply
possibly serve
significant period
for a
of time. He has
passion upon
judges to sentence based
parole.
never been tested on
Law-
See
upon a reasonable evalua-
prejudice and not
rence,
individuals and any- absence of thing in the suggest record to potential rehabilitation, expect would not that a
remand in this case for further fact-find-