Court Opinion

ID: 9561124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:03:58.536212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:38.531989
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the court’s holding that the state is precluded from appealing the sentence in the case at bar. Nor can I join in the court’s reaffirmation of Thessen v. State, 508 P.2d 1192 (Alaska 1970).
AS 12.55.120(b) provides that: “A sentence of imprisonment lawfully imposed by the superior court may be appealed to the supreme court by the state on the ground that the sentence is too lenient.” The state contends that the superior court erred in concluding that Thessen precluded the imposition of multiple convictions and sentences in the circumstances of the instant case. The gist of the state’s position is that the single sentence meted out by the superior court is “too lenient” for the reason that multiple judgments of conviction and sentences were both authorized and warranted as proper sanctions for the killings of Janet and Dennis Carlson. I agree that “leniency” must be judged realistically to refer to aspects of sentencing arising as a result of conviction other than simply length. Thus, I am led to the conclusion that the state’s appeal is within the ambit of AS 12.55.120(b) and therefore not subj ect to dismissal.
Further, I think it appropriate to voice my dissent from the majority’s explicit reaffirmation of the double jeopardy holdings enunciated in Thessen. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Thessen, I would hold that the sentencing court was not precluded from imposing separate sentences upon Gibson’s plea of nolo contend-ere to two counts of negligent homicide.1

. Alaska’s negligent homicide statute, AS 11.15.080, reads where pertinent, “Every killing of a human being by the culpable negligence of another ... is manslaughter, and is punishable accordingly.” Thessen involved prosecution under AS 11.15.040, which provides in part: “ . . . a person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of manslaughter.” For purposes of my analysis of the double jeopardy issues in this case, I discern no difference between the effect of AS 11.15.040 and AS 11.15.080.