*1 Alaska, Appellant, STATE LANCASTER, Appellee.
Wesley D.
No. 2571.
Supreme of Alaska. Court
March Atty., Dist. Dunning, Asst.
Stephen G. Balfe, Anchorage. Atty., Joseph Dist. D. *2 1258 Gen., However, Gross, appeal by Atty. Juneau, for is authorized statute.3
Avrum M. disposition we are limited in our of a sen- appellant. appeal brought may by tence the state. We Defender, Weaver, Public Mark A. Asst. sentence, modify may оnly not the but ex- Defender, Shortell, Anchor- Brian Public press approval disapproval our or of it age, appellee. for opinion.4 a written BOOCHEVER, Justice, Before Chief CONNOR, rape The circumstances of BURKE, the were ERWIN, Justices, brought hearing testimony out DIMOND, by at the the Pro Tem. Justice place of the The victim. first offense took OPINION night when the victim in her bed at with her got clothes on. on the Lancaster DIMOND, Pro Tem. Justice bed girl’s together and tied the wrists with a three- within two ocсasions On wire. She He screamed and tried to rise. forcibly raped Wesley day period, Lancaster pushed bed, her back on the cut the cloth- pleaded nolo condendere1 young girl. a He ing body from her raped razоr a sentenced rape, and was to two counts of her. The place second offense a took years on each imprisonment to for seven couple days pushed of later. Lancaster the count, run concur the sentences to bed, struggles victim on a overcame her of suspended rently. The by choking resistance threatening seven-year the sen of each of her, kill raped and then judge her. The tences, leaving a total of two Lancaster testimony found from the the victim addition, years imprisonment to serve. In had not encouraged Lancaster nor had judge possibility to the the made reference s'he any way consented in in- to the sexual parole of had served one- after Lancaster tercourse. two-year period third of confinement sentence, Before judge the 2 : witnesses, the testimony heard of several Nevertheless, the defendant has avail- including psychiatrist, Lancaster, and the him, all, early parole able to first aft- rapes; victim permitted and he also er one-third of 2 He the is served. parties counsel for present their re- approximately will have serve 7 months, eligible spective arguments. thereafter be he will The then made parole. for some rather expressing extensive remarks imposition for appealed ground The reasons state 'has on the the sentence the sentence is too lenient. Such an he chose. phase parole The Latin “nolo contendere” means: who has not served at least one- charge “I period will not [the contest in a criminal third of the of confinement to which complaint sentenced, or indictment]”. Black Law Dic- he has been or in the case of a tionary (4th 1951). sentence, at 1198 ed. life has not served at least 15 legal plea years. The effect of a of nolo contendere guilt is as conclusive to the of a defendant 12.55.120(b) provides: ,AS plea guilty. Cooksey as a 524 imprisonment lawfully A sentence of im- 1251, n. posed by superior may ap- court be provides: 2. AS 33.15.080 pealed supreme by to the court the state appears If it to the board from a review ground on the that the sentence is too len- prisoner eligible parole will, that a ; however, appealed ient when sentence is probability, reasonable live and remain at by ap- the state and the defendant has not liberty violating laws, without or with- pealed sentence, au- court not violating imposed by out the conditions may thorized to increase the sentence but board, and if the board dеtermines that his express approval disapproval its or parole incompatible release on is not opin- sentence and its reasons in a written society, the welfare of the board author- ion. prisoner parole. ize the release of the However, prisoner may no be released 4. Id. pro- Lancaster implementing found that the constitutional In acts, despite were conscious Lan- author- committed vision referred tо and the statutes court, testimony appeals,6 starting caster’s that he had no recollec- izing sentence this judge further found that Chaney, tion of them. The with State v. mentally ill time recognized
Lancaster was not
at the
number
(Alaska 1970), has
*3
However, the
he
goals
imposing
committed thе crimes.
to be achieved in
crimi-
of
mitigat-
judge felt that there were certain
In
since
nal sentences.
numerous cases
ing
was under con-
spoken
factors: Lancaster
have
of the criteria
Chaney, we
at the
govern
imрosition
siderable emotional stress and strain
of
which should
the
problems
time because of marital
and re-
sentences.7
ligious
family;
with his
differences
wife’s
is,
Rehabilitation of the offender
home,
recently
job
he had
lost his
and his
coursе,
important goal
of
an
to be achieved
dependent
charity
and found himself
t'he
society and
it is
for the benefit of
because
family;
of his wife’s
this was Lancaster’s
the
recognition
a
of the intrinsic worth and
offense;
years
only
first
he was
old at
person may
dignity
inherent
A
of man.
place;
the
the
took
time
and he had
required by soci
flout the rules of behavior
drinking
beverages.
been
alcoholic
In ad-
ety
preservation
tranquil-
for its
and
own
dition,
judge
the
found that Lаncaster had
lity,
may
grave
and his misbehavior
be so
rapes,
grati-
committed the
not for sexual
require
as to
him to be considered evil.
alone,
purpose
fication
but for the
of strik-
person may
But no matter
a
how wicked
ing out
anger
family,
in
at his wife’s
and
be,
impels
very
humanity
his
the
essence of
victim,
that
t'he
his
member of
wife’s
people
en
most civilized
to consider him
family,
purpose.
was the instrument for that
beyond redemption.
titled to and not
That
why
is
the
reformatiоn should be one of
Alaska’s
provides
Constitution
that:
that,
important
sentencing
criteria in
—so
“Penal administration shall be based
the
possible, person
possesses
if
innate
who
principle
upon
of reformation and
the need
being may
value as a human
be
of
convinced
for protecting
public.”
determining
the
In
virtue,
the need and value
than
of
rather
an appropriate
Lancaster,
sentence for
the
evil,
of
his
thus contribute
worth
judge was concerned primarily
re-
peaceful society.
to an ordered and
habilitation,
he
since
felt that if a criminal
be
The fact that a criminal should
was rehabilitated to the extent that he re-
rehabilitated,
possible,
if
not meаn
does
conduct,
frained from criminal
public
the
his
escape punishment that he should
protected;
would be
thus the two constitu-
very opposite may
true.
misdeeds. The
be
principles
penal
tional
of
administration
imposеd in most instances
Penalties must be
merge
would tend to
into one.
effective,
in order to make rehabilitation
believed that the
im-
sentence
protect
public
as
deter
well as to
the
posed, which
amounted to seven
in all
engaging
others
in criminal conduct.
from
(two years imprisonment plus
imposi
Equally important in the
suspended sentence), would
super-
allow
recognize
need
tion of sanctions is the
to
vision of Lancaster both in and out of
of
express community
condemnation
prison
long enough period
for a
of
time
Little,
conduct.
the offender’s anti-social
control
gave
the circumstances which
rise
cri
any,
given
was
this
if
consideration
to the crimes he
“Seemingly
сommitted and make it un-
by
sentencing judge.
terion
proceed-
forgotten
sentencing
in
likely
all but
again.
he would commit them
Constitution,
I,
lists
5.
cases which
Alaska
of the more recent
art.
12.
7.One
§
goals
Perrin v.
be achieved is
12.55.120;
22.05.010;
AS
AS
AS
22.10.-
sincerity
question the
оf
rapes.8
do not
of Lancaster's
We
ings
the victim”
his
respect
seri-
among the most
rape ranks
Forcible
Newsom,
crimi
philosophy
imposing
in
of
sanctions for
As we stated
crimes.9
ous
nal
he was
conduct. But we believe that
crime
such a
sentence
clearly mistaken13
vic-
of the
a desecration
amounts to.
longer
substantially
period
he
A
did.
part
her
person
is a
tim’s
vital
which
actual confinement on
two counts
being.10
human
sanctity
dignity
as
rape
par
light
wаs called for
hearing,
sentencing
at the
In
remarks
and the
ticular circumstances of the case
rape
one
stated
goals
penal
longer
administration.14 A
we con-
What
three most serious crimes.
period
unequivocally
of confinement would
extremely
sentence
moderate
sider to
anbe
bring home to Lancaster the
nature
serious
not, however,
a real under-
reflect
does
*4
crime,15
consequences
and
would
and
standing
gravity
the offense be-
society’s
reaffirm
violent
condemnation of
it
cause
short
falls
rape.16
and forcible
goal
community con-
effectuating the
disapprove
imposed
We
of the sentence
demnation,
of socie-
the rеaffirmation
or
as being too
maintaining
lenient.
norms,
purpose of
tal
for the
respect
for the norms themselves.11
years
15
only
was
old
The victim
WITZ,
participat-
Justice,
RABINO
not
inexperienced.
sexually
She was
and was
ing.
ravaged
аgainst her
and desecrated
will
in a
manner. The sen
forcible
violent
BOOCHEVER,
Justice,
Chief
imposed
Lancaster,
in
tence
considered
CONNOR,
dissenting.
Justice, joins,
whom
light
in
of the circumstances involved
agree
rapes,
majority
could
to While I
thаt the
commission of the
lead
very
that two
of a
offenses
'here constitute
the conclusion
forcible
committed
crimes,
15-year-old
really
re
serious
I
find
the trial
female child are
not
cannot
clearly
flective
court was
under all of the
of serious anti-social conduct.
mistaken
in
concept
neg
imposing
erode
circumstances
sen-
Such
would tend to
or
concurrent
society’s
grossly
ate
of such
tences of seven
sus-
condemnatiоn
pended.1
carefully
offensive criminal actions.12
(Alaska 1974)
Chaney,
State,
(20
441,
years) ;
(Alas-
8. State v.
v.
Newsom
446
477 P.2d
1970).
(Alaska 1975)
(15 years) ;
ka,
might trial
tence, that the I do believe not clearly mistaken. COMPANIES UNION
COMMERCIAL Company, Burgess Construсtion Appellants, Work- and Alaska S.
William SMALLWOOD Board, Appellees. Compensation men’s
No. 2443.
Supreme of Alaska. Court
March Hagans, & Stone,
Timothy M.
Smith
appellants.
Brown, Anchorage,
(assault
(Alaska 1971)
State,
Gregory
(Alaska 1971)
P.2d 122
v.