*1 rest his case at that is inconsistent present claim of error. judgment is AFFIRMED. KANIPE, Appellant,
David Lee
Supreme Court of Alaska. Oswald,
James D. Asst. Public Defender Shortell, Defender, and Brian Public An- choragе, appellant.
Eugene Murphy, Atty., P. Dist. Lar- Asst. Weeks, ry Atty., Anchorage, R. Dist. Gross, Gen., Juneau, Atty. Avrum M. appellee. RABINOWITZ, J., CONNOR,
Before C. MATTHEWS, JJ., DI- BURKE MOND, Justice. Senior OPINION CONNOR, Justice.
At about 6:00 a. m. on сompanion threw some David and a through display jew- window of a rocks elry in downtown store on Fourth Avenue *2 679 process and a friend that he had bеen in the helped reached in Anchorage. They and some baubles and were ar- the friend themselves to of to sell it for when Kanipe lattеr. was The rested a few minutes the made.3 court rec- observation was time. drunk at the offense was not ognized underlying that the severe, although “seriоus.” particularly not in a guilty burglary to Kanipe pled failure to The court abide felt that 1979, 4,May given was a and dwelling,1 probation justified the requirements the suspended Among of sentence. imposition serve, particularly in imposition of time to probation require- the was a conditions of incidеnt. light of the gun-carrying complete a residential Kanipe ment that program at an An- rehabilitation alcohol for sentences exces- review Kanipe complete failed to chorage facility. of the nature of upon siveness based the proba- the that condition of program and offender, fense, the of the and character probation a tion after revoca- was deleted public. the рrotecting the need for See 19,1979. Kanipe gave hearing tion on June (Alaska 1970). 441 Chaney, v. 477 P.2d State address, a false his officer probation following pro imposed When a sentence petition Another to revoke disappeared. revocation, sentencing judge bation the report. was based on his failure to filed criteria as those must consider the same time, the probation This was upon conviction of the initially сonsidered four-year imposed court sentence. State, underlying offense. See Soroka the appealed has sentence. Kanipe 69, 1979); 598 P.2d American 71-72 hearing, revocation Ka- probation At the Project on Bar Association Standards nipe allegations peti- the the admitted of Justice, Relating to Criminal Standards tion. that he left the explained He had Probation, (Approved 58 Draft 5.1 at § facility rehabilitation because he alcohol is not neces 1970). Imposition jail time persons and he geared felt was to older it express because the sarily simply called for were, counselling group the sessions found probation been violated. terms of have So therefore, He inadequate.2 claims to have 71-72; roka, Holton v. 598 at see P.2d probation explain his officer to contacted 1228, (Alaska 1979); 602 1240 P.2d this, unresponsive. her He stat- and found 707, 709 еd a false address to his gave that he 390, P.2d cf. 606 392 Charles tion at the time the infor- officer because (Alaska 1980). he had no of his requested placе mation was ordering primary responsibility The own. sentencing priorities among the various hearing the revocation es- Testimony at sentencing judge. purposes lies with the Kanipe was that observed tablished P.2d g., e. See Asitonia ing in downtown An- a concealed revolver n.4 awaiting choragе on court say that the hearing. his revocation We cannot second determining that gun Ka- belonged that the to in explained mistaken Kanipе say anything penal I because didn’t have in the AS 11.20.100. Under former See 1, 1980, January discussing groups they maxi- in effect until weren’t what code because asking sentence was five Bur- mum authorized instead of me I I was at so was-where glary dwelling know, been they not in a reclassified you problem, was tell- what’s the AS 11.46.310. they you’re groups, participating in not pressure putting I on. don’t lot of stated: expected they me out of but know what “Well, Honor, I didn’t-I don’t Your didn’t-I up giving just it whatеver I wasn’t it was expected identi- how 1 could have been see to them.” least, very you fy know, people who are at the with enough my pеople old to be who are gun it was testified 3.The officer who saw They’re my mother. not-I’m not- father they’re loaded, but denied this. am, dealing not on the same level as way or the other. not one established dealing problems. with the same just getting along anybody there wasn’t Mr. Justice Matthews has authorized me warranted incarceration.4 nipe’s conduct joins he protec- my concerned for to state that dissent. rightly The court was persuaded, We are how- public. tion of the was,
ever, imposed that the nature of the offense5 and
in view of the offender,6 clearly
the character of the mis- *3 The sentence is and the
taken.7 reversed resentencing,
case not to ex- remanded for years
ceed two to serve.8 NEWELL, Appellant, Terry and REMANDED. REVERSED J., dissents, BURKE, with whom MAT-
THEWS, J., joins. Supreme Court Alaska. J.,
BOOCHEVER, participating. 1980. BURKE, Justice, with MAT- whom THEWS, Justice, joins, dissеnting. Kanipe’s
Given conduct
tion, am superior not convinced that impose year
court’s decision to a four sen- Accordingly,
tence was mistaken.
would affirm the sentence. McClain v.