Opinion ID: 1316266
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the Sentence Imposed by the Superior Court Clearly Mistaken?

Text: The maximum sentences for Hodari's crimes are as follows: (1) thirty years for each count of first degree sexual assault, or a total of sixty years; [17] (2) twenty years for one count of first degree robbery; [18] (3) ten years for one count of second degree assault. [19] In sum, the maximum Hodari could have been sentenced to is ninety years. Alaska utilizes presumptive sentencing. [20] The presumptive terms set out in the statute establish the appropriate sentence in most cases. [21] The legislature has said that [a] presumptive sentence is a legislative determination of the term of imprisonment the average defendant convicted of an offense should be sentenced to, absent the presence of legislatively prescribed factors in aggravation or mitigation or extraordinary circumstances. [22] Since Hodari had a prior felony conviction, his presumptive sentence is as follows: (1) fifteen years for the first count of first degree sexual assault, with at least some portion of an additional fifteen-year sentence for the second count to be consecutive; [23] (2) at least some part of ten years for one count of first degree robbery to be consecutive; [24] and (3) at least some part of four years for one count of second degree assault to be consecutive. [25] In sum, under presumptive sentencing, without accounting for aggravating factors, Hodari theoretically could have received a sentence of up to forty-four years. Because Hodari's crimes included first degree sexual assault and first degree robbery, there is a preference for consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. [26]
A court may increase or decrease a presumptive sentence if there are mitigating or aggravating factors. [27] Judge Andrews found that the following aggravating factors [28] were proven: 1. Hodari's crime falls within the most serious conduct category. [29]

9. He actually had committed two felonies prior to this crime, but since he had not been convicted of the second felony before this crime it could not be considered for presumptive sentencing purposes. 10. He had a significant juvenile record. 11. He had no verifiable employment and a miserable work history. 12. He had received no alcohol or drug treatment. 13. He had a poor record while incarcerated. As a result of the number and quality of the aggravators established by the evidence, as well as the facts of the crimes themselves, Judge Andrews found Hodari's record qualified him as a dangerous offender. Judge Andrews's assessment of his extreme dangerousness is evidenced by the court's remark: this court's sentence will not put Mr. Hodari under correctional supervision for the rest of his life because I can't do it because it's not authorized.