Court Opinion

ID: 9547185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:43:02.46355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:25.644654
License: Public Domain

OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
Kyle C. Ison appeals the 2-year presumptive term he received for felony driving while intoxicated, AS 28.35.030(a) and 030(n); AS 12.55.125(e)(1). He questions the superior court’s rulings on two of the mitigating factors listed in AS 12.55.155(d). Specifically, Ison asks us to reverse the superior court’s rejection of mitigator (d)(9), to clarify the meaning of mitigating factor (d)(13), and to address the relationship between mitigators (d)(9) and (d)(13).
As a preliminary matter, the State questions Ison’s right to appeal. The State relies on Alaska Appellate Rule 215(a), which declares that felony defendants can file a sentence appeal only if they received more than 2 years to serve. See also AS 12.55.120(a). Because Ison received exactly 2 years to serve, and not more, the State argues that Ison can not appeal his sentence.
However, Ison’s appeal is not a “sentence appeal” governed by Appellate Rule 215(a) and AS 12.55.120(a). A sentence appeal is premised on the assumption that the defendant’s sentence was lawfully imposed. In a sentence appeal, the defendant asserts that a lawful sentence is excessive— ie., that it constitutes an abuse of sentencing discretion. Ison, on the other hand, asserts that the sentencing court committed legal error during the sentencing process — that the court erred in construing and applying mitigating factors. As we recently explained in Rozkydal v. State, 938 P.2d 1091, 1093-94 (Alaska App.1997), such assertions of error are appealable regardless of the length of the defendant’s sentence. We therefore turn to Ison’s arguments.
*197At Ms sentencing, Ison proposed the mitigating factor codified in AS 12.55.155(d)(9) — that “the conduct constituting [Ms] offense was among the least serious conduct included in the definition of the offense”. The superior court rejected this mit-igator. We must affirm the sentencing court’s ruling unless Ison shows that it is clearly erroneous. Lepley v. State, 807 P.2d 1095, 1099 n. 1 (Alaska App.1991).
Ison’s argument on this point consists of one paragraph in which he views the evidence in the light most favorable to himself. The State’s evidence suggested that Ison’s offense was more serious than Ison construes it. Moreover, in his description of his conduct, Ison fails to mention that he was driving with a suspended license and that he physically resisted the officers when they arrested him. We uphold the superior court’s ruling that Ison failed to prove miti-gator (d)(9).
Ison next argues that, even if his offense was not among the least serious, the superior court still should have found miti-gator (d)(13). Under AS 12.55.155(d)(13), a felony offense is mitigated for purposes of presumptive sentencing if
the facts surrounding the commission of the [present] offense and any previous offenses by the defendant establish that the harm caused by the defendant’s conduct is consistently minor and inconsistent with the imposition of a substantial period of imprisonment.
Ison argues that the superior court should have found this mitigator because Ison has never seriously hurt any person or any property.
At age 27, Ison already has a lengthy criminal history. He has three convictions for driving while intoxicated. He was convicted of felony criminal mischief in 1990 for causing damage to another’s property. Ison served 18 months in prison for this prior felony. In addition, Ison has ten convictions for driving without a license, as well as convictions for speeding, reckless driving, misdemeanor assault, disorderly conduct, failure to appear, and contempt of court.
Ison asserts, however, that he has never caused substantial injury to people or damage to property. For this reason, Ison contends that his criminal history falls within the category described by mitigator (d)(13)— that “the harm caused by [his] conduct [has been] consistently minor”, and that whatever harm he has caused is “inconsistent with the imposition of a substantial period of imprisonment”.
Ison recognizes that this court has construed mitigator (d)(13) to encompass more than actual harm to persons or property. In Jordan v. State, 895 P.2d 994, 1000 & n. 8 (Alaska App.1995), we indicated that a sentencing court could properly reject mitigator (d)(13) based on the relative seriousness of the defendant’s conduct (within the defimtion of the offense), as well as the risk of harm posed by the defendant’s conduct. Ison argues that, to the extent Jordan allows a sentencing court to consider factors other than the actual harm caused by a defendant’s conduct, Jordan is inconsistent with the language of mitigator (d)(13). He therefore asks us to reconsider our construction of the mitigator.
When construing a statute, our goal is to “ascertain and implement the intent of the legislature”, Millman v. State, 841 P.2d 190, 194 (Alaska App.1992), as that intent is reflected in the statute’s language, legislative history, and purpose. Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787 (Alaska 1996). When a question of statutory construction arises, our duty is to adopt the construction that is “most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy”. Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979).
Mitigator (d)(13) was added by the legislature in 1980. See. 1980 SLA ch. 102, see. 41. The legislature included a commentary to mitigator (d)(13), but the commentary provides only one example of what the legislature intended the mitigator to achieve:
One situation where this mitigator might be applicable is when the defendant has committed a number of felony property offenses, such as check forgeries, but they all involve relatively small amounts of money.
*1981980 Senate Journal, Supp. No. 44 (May 29), p. 26. At first blush, the legislature’s example might be viewed as supporting Ison’s argument. However, the legislature’s example deals with an offense that is normally graded according to how much property damage is inflicted. This example leaves unanswered the question of how mitigator (d)(13) applies to crimes that are normally thought to justify substantial imprisonment even though they may involve no injury at all.
Take, for example, a disgruntled employee who tries to set fire to his employer’s office building, but the accelerant fails to ignite. He is convicted of attempted arson and imprisoned. Upon his release, the employee procures a semi-automatic riñe, returns to his employer’s office building, and sprays bullets through the cafeteria — miraculously inflicting no wounds. If the employee is now sentenced for assault, did the legislature intend for the employee’s sentence to be mitigated because neither of his two crimes caused physical harm to persons or property?
Although Ison appears to argue that the answer is “yes”, we believe it highly unlikely that the legislature intended such a result. Many crimes — from attempted murder and robbery to bribery and driving while intoxicated — do not require proof of physical injury or actual harm to property. These offenses are punished because of the risks they create, and because of the serious disruption of the social fabric they entail. Such risks and disruptions are “harms” for purposes of the criminal law:
[The criminal law deals with the] harm which results from human conduct — social harm. With reference to this term, it [should] be mentioned that it is socially harmful not only to have a man murdered, a dwelling burglariously invaded, or property stolen, but also to have a conspiracy formed in the community, to have one member thereof challenge another to a duel, or offer to bribe an officer. In these latter instances, let it be emphasized, it is socially harmful to have such influences abroad in the community even if the criminal purpose of the conspiracy is not achieved, the challenge is refused, and the bribe rejected.
R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd ed. 1982), p. 11.
For these reasons, we reject Ison’s contention that mitigator (d)(13) speaks only to physical harm to persons or property. Instead, we reiterate the construction of (d)(13) that we employed in Jordan. When a defendant proposes mitigator (d)(13) — that is, when a defendant asserts that his or her present and past offenses all involve harm that is “consistently minor” and that is “inconsistent with ... a substantial period of imprisonment” — the sentencing court can take into account not only the physical injury and harm to property inflicted by the defendant, but also the relative seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and the risk of harm posed by the defendant’s conduct.
Ison questions another aspect of the Jordan decision. We stated in Jordan that, because mitigator (d)(13) focuses on a defendant’s past and present offenses, mitigator (d)(13) can not be proved unless the sentencing court finds that the defendant’s present offense is among the least serious — in other words, unless the court finds that the defendant has proved mitigator (d)(9). Ison asks us to reconsider that holding. He argues that the harm caused by a defendant’s crimes can be “consistently minor” and “inconsistent with ... a substantial period of imprisonment” even if the defendant’s conduct in committing the present offense does not qualify as “among the least serious”.
We conclude that it is unnecessary to resolve this issue. Under the circumstances of Ison’s case, his argument is moot.
Ison was convicted of a felony because he is a recidivist drunk driver; he has been convicted three times within the past five years of driving while intoxicated. This, in itself, does not aggravate Ison’s offense; it merely establishes it. However, leaving the DWI convictions to one side, Ison has repeatedly demonstrated that he will not obey society’s rules governing driving. He has been convicted ten times of driving without a valid license, and he was driving with a suspended license on the present occasion. In *199addition, Ison fought with the officers who arrested him; he had to be subdued with pepper spray. These circumstances do not suggest that Ison’s present offense is either “minor” or “inconsistent with ... a substantial period of imprisonment”.
Moreover, to prove mitigator (d)(13), Ison must also show that the circumstances surrounding his past offenses are inconsistent with imposition of a substantial prison term. Ison served 18 months in prison for his first felony offense. The judge who sentenced Ison for that crime obviously did not believe that Ison’s conduct on that prior occasion was “inconsistent with imposition of a substantial period of imprisonment”, and Ison has not argued that that prior sentence was unduly harsh.
On this record, we conclude that the superior court would have been clearly erroneous to find mitigator (d)(13). Thus, even if there might be cases in which mitigator (d)(13) should apply even though the defendant’s present offense is not among the least serious, Ison’s case does not raise this issue.
The sentencing decision of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
COATS, J., dissenting.