Court Opinion

ID: 9613862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:20:33.379005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:32.686491
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion holding that the trial court lacked authority to amend its judgment to order the limitation on appellant’s eligibility for parole. In my opinion, such action was authorized by Criminal Rule 36 and did not violate appellant’s right against double jeopardy. I see no reason to question the trial court’s statement that when it used the word “recommendation” it intended to use the word “order.” Such being the case I believe the court was entitled to correct its judgment. A “meaningfully imposed” sentence, it seems to me, is one that accurately states the disposition intended by the sentencing judge. Thus, I find nothing in *1041the action of the trial court that violates our holding in Sonnier v. State, 483 P.2d 1003 (Alaska 1971).