Court Opinion

ID: 9558026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:47.626273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:06.380811
License: Public Domain

*373BURKE, Justice
(concurring-).
As first stated in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 443 (Alaska 1970), in reviewing criminal sentences,
[I]t is our duty to examine the proceedings below to review for excessiveness or leniency the sentence imposed by the trial court, in light of the nature of the crime, the defendant’s character, and the need for protecting the public. We are also obliged to consider the manner in which the sentence was imposed, including the sufficiency and accuracy of the information upon which it was based, (footnote omitted)
Here, the record demonstrates that the sentencing judge inferred that Donlun had probably committed other crimes from the simple fact that he had been unemployed for some time. I agree that such an inference was entirely improper for purposes of imposing a criminal sentence, and that we are required to remand this case for a new sentence hearing. While Donlun may well deserve the very sentence that he received, he is entitled to have that sentence imposed on the basis of properly verified information rather than idle speculation having no logical basis or support in the evidence.
On the issue of Donlun’s eligibility for work release privileges, I express no opinion, as it appears to me that the resolution of that issue is no longer necessary.