Summary
The Alaska Supreme Court held that former AS 12.55.090(f), applicable from 2012 to 2016, abrogated a defendant's right to reject further probation when a specific probation period was required by a Rule 11 plea agreement. The court concluded that the statute's plain text prohibited reducing the agreed probation period without the consent of both the defendant and the prosecuting authority. The opinion answered a certified question from the Alaska Court of Appeals in Jason D. Ray's probation-revocation appeal.
Holdings
- Yes. The statute prohibits a court from reducing the specific period of probation provided in a Rule 11 agreement unless both the prosecution and defendant agree, making it impossible for a defendant to unilaterally reject such probation. The statute therefore abrogates the right recognized in Henry v. State.
- The court must apply the Chaney sentencing criteria; it may impose the balance of the remaining suspended time if warranted but is not required to do so. The statute does not mandate automatic imposition of the full suspended term.
Questions Presented
- Whether former AS 12.55.090(f) abrogates a defendant's right, recognized in Henry v. State, to reject probation previously agreed to in a Rule 11 plea agreement and instead serve active imprisonment only.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (33)
- Henry v. State, 240 P.3d 846 (Alaska App. 2010)(abrogated_by_statute)
- Ray v. State, 452 P.3d 688 (Alaska App. 2019)(cited)
- State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970)(relied_on)
- Brown v. State, 559 P.2d 107 (Alaska 1977)(relied_on)
- Pete v. State, 379 P.2d 625 (Alaska 1963)(cited)
- State v. Staael, 807 P.2d 513 (Alaska App. 1991)(cited)
- State v. Auliye, 57 P.3d 711 (Alaska App. 2002)(cited)
- Hurd v. State, 107 P.3d 314 (Alaska App. 2005)(cited)
- Sweezey v. State, 167 P.3d 79 (Alaska App. 2007)(cited)
- Chinuhuk v. State, 472 P.3d 511 (Alaska 2020)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 33.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…