Court Opinion

ID: 9558025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:47.622354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:06.176877
License: Public Domain

ERWIN, Justice
concurring.
Although I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this matter be remanded for resentencing, my reasons differ from those stated by the majority. It is my opinion that a five-year sentence is excessive under the circumstances.
The facts surrounding the burglary conviction disclose that Donlun entered a sleeping neighbor’s apartment through a door which had been left partially open for ventilation. From the apartment Donlun removed a portable television set, an iron, two cigarette lighters, and some cash. When subsequently confronted with a demand for return of the property, Donlun produced everything but the cash and admitted it was he who had taken the property
The presentence report indicates that Donlun was 21 years old at the time of the offense. His only previous encounters with the law consisted of two traffic-related cases.
Although Donlun has had a history of alcohol abuse since age 12, our previous opinion in this matter noted “that at the time of the trial, appellant was reported to be making excellent progress in an alcoholic treatment program, and demonstrated a willingness to continue.”1
Also noteworthy in my mind is the fact that at the presentencing proceeding, additional evidence was presented to the lower court by a counselor and officer of the State Division of Corrections who had worked with Donlun since the time of his initial incarceration. This person stated that on the basis of his own experience as a counselor and his contact with Donlun at Eagle River, he considered Donlun’s conduct and attitude to have improved to the point that probation or parole would be desirable.
I find nothing in the factual circumstances pertaining to Donlun’s commission of the offense of burglary, in his previous record, or in the presentence report which supports the imposition of a five-year sentence. In my opinion the trial court was clearly mistaken in imposing the sentence it did.
Although the majority finds that the trial court’s sentence was erroneous with respect to the denial of work furlough for Donlun, I consider that aspect of the sentence worthy of some comment.
In our previous opinion we noted that Donlum dropped out of school at age fifteen and had failed to maintain steady employment thereafter. It is highly unlikely then, that Donlun has acquired work skills which will enable him to obtain gainful employment upon his return to the community. In light of this, it is my opinion that Don-lun was a perfect candidate for a work release program, which would provide him with a livelihood upon his release from prison. To deny Donlun this opportunity seems counterproductive and without justification. As this court recently observed:
If nothing more than selfish interest compels us, then the principle of “reformation” enunciated in our state constitution is worth the effort, for when it works, it reduces crime.2

. Donlun v. State, 527 P.2d 472, 475 (Alaska 1974).

. Cleary v. State, 548 P.2d 952 (Alaska 1976).