Opinion ID: 2621337
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parker's case falls into the broad category of typical cases to which the presumptive sentence applies.

Text: The presumptive term for a second felony conviction will apply in the majority of cases. As the court of appeals noted in Knight v. State : The presumptive term for any given class of case represents the appropriate sentence for typical cases in that class, a relatively broad category into which most cases will fall; statutory aggravating and mitigating factors define the peripheries of this category, identifying relatively narrow circumstances that tend to make a given case atypical and place it outside the relatively broad presumptive middle ground.[ [26] ] The legislature intended for the most serious aggravating factor and the least serious mitigating factor to have a limited scope. The potential scope of these factors is most clearly indicated in criminal statutes which are defined by number or value. For instance, according to the legislative commentary on Alaska's Revised Criminal Code: Under subsections [AS 12.55.155](c)(10) and (d)(9) a presumptive term may be aggravated or mitigated if the conduct constituting the offense was among the most or least serious conduct included within the definition of the offense. For example, if the defendant was convicted of a felony two years earlier, and is now being sentenced for the theft of $24,999, theft in the second degree, a class C felony, the fact that the conduct constituting the offense was among the most serious conduct included in theft in the second degree may aggravate the presumptive term.[ [27] ] Similarly, when it rejected the least serious mitigator, the superior court focused on easily quantifiable elements of Parker's offenses: the victim's age and the number of pictures that Parker produced and possessed. The superior court was entitled to consider the fact that many of the pictures were taken when V.M. was sixteen, two years shy of adulthood and less than twelve months past the age of consent. As the superior court noted, V.M.'s age places the crime toward the lower end of typical child pornography offenses, but not necessarily among the least serious. Additionally, the superior court noted the substantial number of photos in Parker's briefcase. Even assuming that only sixty of the photos qualified as pornographic, as Parker now argues, (an issue we do not decide) this number goes more than halfway to establishing a prima facie case of intent to distribute child pornography. [28] (And this calculation does not include the three pornographic videotapes of the victim that Parker produced and possessed.) Furthermore, where a no contest plea results from a plea bargain, as in Parker's case, an underlying course of conduct comprising multiple potential offenses not all of which are charged, may also weigh against the least serious mitigator. We have already noted that each pornographic photograph and video found in Parker's briefcase could support a separate violation of AS 11.61.127. Additional information from Parker's presentence report might have led to further charges: His briefcase contained semi-nude photos of two other underage girls in addition to the pornographic pictures and videos of V.M., and he allegedly gave two of the girls marijuana and alcohol, in addition to the LSD for which he was convicted.