Court Opinion

ID: 9558999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:20:31.717985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:42.869523
License: Public Domain

OPINION
STEWART, Judge.
The single issue presented in these two consolidated appeals is whether these two appellants were “convicted of a felony” for purposes of AS 11.61.200(a)(1) (felon in possession of a concealable firearm) when they possessed a concealable firearm after they had been found guilty of a felony but before sentence was imposed. We conclude that defendants who have entered a plea or have been found guilty of a felony at trial are “convicted of a felony” for purposes of this statute.

Facts and proceedings

On February 14, 1995, Charles L. Brant pled no contest to third-degree assault, a class C felony.1 On February 23, 1997, a *591police officer found Brant intoxicated and seated in a car, with a small pistol on the seat beside him. Brant had still not been sentenced on the third-degree assault charge. The grand jury indicted Brant on one count of third-degree misconduct involving weapons for being a felon in possession of a concealable firearm.2 Superior Court Judge Dale O. Curda found Brant guilty after a court trial. Judge Curda rejected Brant’s argument that he had to be sentenced on the prior third-degree assault felony before he could be considered “convicted of a felony” under AS 11.61.200(a)(1).
Richard Archambault pled no contest to a charge of third-degree assault.3 Before Ar-chambault was sentenced, an Alaska State Trooper discovered that Archambault possessed a handgun on July 3, 1997. The grand jury indicted Archambault for third-degree misconduct involving weapons. Superior Court Judge Niesje J. Steinkruger rejected Archambault’s argument that, because he had not been sentenced on third-degree assault charge, he was not a felon in possession. Archambault was convicted by a jury.

Discussion

This case presents a question of statutory interpretation. We review this issue de novo and adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, policy, and reason.4
Brant and Archambault were convicted of violating AS 11.61.200(a)(1). That statute provides in relevant part that a “person commits the crime of misconduct involving weapons in the third degree if the person ... knowingly possesses a firearm capable, of being concealed on one’s person after having been convicted of a felony[.]”5 There is no definition of the phrase “convicted of a felony” or the term “convicted” contained within Title 11.
Alaska courts have not decided if the legislature intended that defendants who have been found guilty on a felony based on a plea but have not yet been sentenced are “convicted of a felony.” In Berg v. State, this court decided a defendant was “convicted of a felony” under AS 11.61.200(a)(1) when the defendant’s sentence for the prior felony was stayed while the case was on appeal.6 Berg argued that “convicted” in that statute could be interpreted either of two ways: first, the ordinary meaning that a defendant is “convicted” after a finding of guilt by a jury or other factfinder, or second, a more restrictive and technical meaning, that a defendant is “convicted” when a final judgment is entered and the time for appeal has run.7 Because “convicted” was not defined in the criminal code, Berg argued that the court should interpret the term most favorably to criminal defendants and adopt the more restrictive and technical interpretation.
This court rejected Berg’s argument for the more restrictive and technical inteipretation. But the opinion expressed that decision in broader terms than were necessary to the resolution of that case. The opinion stated: “We hold that a person has been ‘convicted of a felony’ when the appropriate trier of fact has made a determination of guilt and sentence has been imposed.”8 That statement, examined in isolation, seems to control the issue in this case. But the issue in this case, whether sentence has to be imposed before a defendant is “convicted” for purposes of AS 11.61.200(a)(1), was neither raised nor argued in Berg.
We now stand at another interpretive crossroads. Brant and Archambault urge us to follow the path described by this court’s broad statement in Berg and construe “convicted of a felony” in AS 11.61.200(a)(1) to mean that a defendant must be convicted and sentenced on the prior felony. The appellants argue that this interpretation construes the statute strictly against the govern*592ment. On the other side, the State urges us to follow the precedent of other jurisdictions that have interpreted felon-in-possession statutes similar to AS 11.61.200(a)(1). The State stresses the public policy of controlling felon’s access to concealable firearms. The other jurisdictions cited by the State do not require that a defendant be both convicted and sentenced to be culpable under their statutes.9
Our courts have recognized the policy underlying felon-in-possession statutes. For example in Davis v. State, our supreme court commented as follows: “The purpose of the felon in possession statute is to prevent the concealment and use of firearms in violent crime.”10 And in McCracken v. State, this court observed that “the state has a substantial interest in controlling access to eonceala-ble firearms by persons previously convicted of a felony.”11 The public safety purpose of the statute stems from a conclusion that a felon’s past conduct reflects on the felon’s fitness to possess a concealable firearm. That past conduct is proven factually — beyond a reasonable doubt — when a court accepts a defendant’s plea to a felony or when a defendant is convicted of a felony in a court or a jury trial. The procedural step of sentencing does not provide any additional confirmation that a defendant engaged in conduct that permits classification of the defendant as a felon.
The legislature frequently defines crimes in our criminal code on the basis of a defendant’s criminal history. In some crimes, the legislature defines the crime to require not only that the defendant has been both “convicted,” but that the defendant has been “convicted and sentenced.”12 Thus, the legislature, in at least those crimes just noted, regarded a defendant’s status as “sentenced” as a separate fact to be proven along with the defendant’s status of “convicted.” In AS 11.61.200(a)(1), the legislature only specified that a defendant be “convicted” and did not require that a defendant also be “sentenced” as an additional factual element of the crime.
In light of the precedent, policy, and reasoning discussed above, we conclude that the most persuasive interpretation of “convicted” is the interpretation first raised in Berg, that a defendant is “convicted of a felony” for purposes of AS 11.61.200(a)(1) when a defendant has been found guilty by a jury or other factfinder. We conclude that AS 11.61.200(a)(1) does not require proof that a defendant has also been sentenced on that felony conviction. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the superior court.

Conclusion

The judgments of the superior court are AFFIRMED.

. See State v. Brant, No. 4FA-S94-3216CR; AS 11.41.220(a)-(d).

. AS 11.61.200(a)(1).

. See State v. Archambault, No. 4FA-S97-267CR.

. See Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979).

. AS 11.61.200(a)(1).

. 711 P.2d 553, 554 (Alaska App.1985).

. Id.

. Id.

. See People v. Allaire, 843 P.2d 38, 39 (Colo.App.1992); State v. Holmes, 222 Kan. 212, 563 P.2d 480, 482 (1977); State v. Carr, 487 So.2d 147, 148 (La.App.1986). See also State v. Dintelman, 112 Or.App. 350, 829 P.2d 719, 720 (1992) (requiring conviction and imposition of sentence where trial judge in prior felony retained option to sentence defendant as a misdemeanant.)

. 499 P.2d 1025, 1038 (Alaska 1972), rev’d on other grounds, Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974).

. 743 P.2d 382, 384 (Alaska App.1987).

. AS 11.46.130(a)(6); AS 11.46.140(a)(3); AS 11.46.220(c)(1)(C); AS 11.46.220(c)(2)(B).