Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005 (2026)
Declaration of purpose
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.55.005. Declaration of purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the means for determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon conviction of an offense. The legislature finds that the elimination of unjustified disparity in sentences and the attainment of reasonable uniformity in sentences can best be achieved through a sentencing framework fixed by statute as provided in this chapter. In imposing sentence, the court shall consider
(1) the seriousness of the defendant's present offense in relation to other offenses;
(2) the prior criminal history of the defendant and the likelihood of rehabilitation;
(3) the need to confine the defendant to prevent further harm to the public;
(4) the circumstances of the offense and the extent to which the offense harmed the victim or endangered the public safety or order;
(5) the effect of the sentence to be imposed in deterring the defendant or other members of society from future criminal conduct;
(6) the effect of the sentence to be imposed as a community condemnation of the criminal act and as a reaffirmation of societal norms; and
(7) the restoration of the victim and the community.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the means for determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon conviction of an offense. The legislature finds that the elimination of unjustified disparity in sentences and the attainment of reasonable uniformity in sentences can best be achieved through a sentencing framework fixed by statute as provided in this chapter. In imposing sentence, the court shall consider
(1) the seriousness of the defendant's present offense in relation to other offenses;
(2) the prior criminal history of the defendant and the likelihood of rehabilitation;
(3) the need to confine the defendant to prevent further harm to the public;
(4) the circumstances of the offense and the extent to which the offense harmed the victim or endangered the public safety or order;
(5) the effect of the sentence to be imposed in deterring the defendant or other members of society from future criminal conduct;
(6) the effect of the sentence to be imposed as a community condemnation of the criminal act and as a reaffirmation of societal norms; and
(7) the restoration of the victim and the community.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 153
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Williams v. State, 809 P.2d 931 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991).
Williams v. State, 809 P.2d 931 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “2d 441, 443-44 (Alaska 1970), and enumerated in AS 12.55.005. Id. at 964, 965 The court expressed the core of its ruling in the following terms: As we observed in Creer v.”
Juneby v. State, 641 P.2d 823 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “nce of aggravating or mitigating factors; (3) an explanation of the weight given by the court to each aggravating or mitigating factor, and the relative importance of each factor in comparison with other aggravating or mitigating factors established; and (4) an evaluation of the…”
State v. Wentz, 805 P.2d 962 (Alaska 1991). “ant's present offense in relation to other offenses; (2) the prior criminal history of the defendant, and the likelihood of rehabilitation; (3) the need to confine the defendant to prevent further harm to the public; (4) the circumstances of the offense, and the extent to which…”
State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “AS 12.55.005. If consecutive sentences were automatic in cases involving sexual assaults on minors, it would appear that the legislative goal of uniformity would be achieved.”
Juneby v. State, 665 P.2d 30 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The state also protests that our treatment of the aggravating factor of physical injury is inconsistent with the basic holding of the Juneby opinion that the amount by which presumptive sentences should be increased or decreased in light of aggravating or mitigating factors must…”
Michael v. State, 115 P.3d 517 (Alaska 2005). “2d at 444 ; see also AS 12.55.005. [18] See Chaney, 477 P.2d at 444 ; see also AS 12.”
Phelps v. State, 236 P.3d 381 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “Instead, the supreme court has taken the position that sentencing benchmarks serve only as guidelines, and that any sentencing decision ultimately must be justified on the particular facts of a defendant’s offense and background, evaluated in light of the sentencing criteria…”
Pusich v. State, 907 P.2d 29 (Alaska Ct. App. 1995). “AS 12.55.005; Burleson, 543 P.2d at 1202 .”
State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15 (Alaska 2018). “AS 12.55.005. See State v. Chaney , 477 P.”
Heathcock v. State, 670 P.2d 1155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “AS 12.55.005. In general, except for particularly serious offenses, judges have considerable discretion in imposing sentences on first felony offenders under the revised code.”
Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008). “AS 12.55.005. [107] Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.”
State v. Korkow, 314 P.3d 560 (Alaska 2013). “11 Sentencing courts must consider the factors set out in AS 12.55.005 when imposing sentences. 12 With murder convictions, sentencing courts may, but are not required to, increase or decrease a sentence based on findings of statutory aggravating or mitigating factors.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(1) — 15 cases
Maal v. State, 670 P.2d 708 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).
Williams v. State, 809 P.2d 931 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “2d 441, 443-44 (Alaska 1970), and enumerated in AS 12.55.005. Id. at 964, 965 The court expressed the core of its ruling in the following terms: As we observed in Creer v.”
State v. Andrews, 707 P.2d 900 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “AS 12.55.005. If consecutive sentences were automatic in cases involving sexual assaults on minors, it would appear that the legislative goal of uniformity would be achieved.”
Graybill v. State, 672 P.2d 138 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).
Newell v. State, 771 P.2d 873 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(2) — 8 cases
Juneby v. State, 641 P.2d 823 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “nce of aggravating or mitigating factors; (3) an explanation of the weight given by the court to each aggravating or mitigating factor, and the relative importance of each factor in comparison with other aggravating or mitigating factors established; and (4) an evaluation of the…”
Juneby v. State, 665 P.2d 30 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The state also protests that our treatment of the aggravating factor of physical injury is inconsistent with the basic holding of the Juneby opinion that the amount by which presumptive sentences should be increased or decreased in light of aggravating or mitigating factors must…”
State v. Graybill, 695 P.2d 725 (Alaska 1985).
Williams v. State, 809 P.2d 931 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “2d 441, 443-44 (Alaska 1970), and enumerated in AS 12.55.005. Id. at 964, 965 The court expressed the core of its ruling in the following terms: As we observed in Creer v.”
Elizabeth Watson v. State of Alaska, 487 P.3d 568 (Alaska 2021).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(3) — 3 cases
Cooper v. Dist. Court, 133 P.3d 692 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006).
Phelps v. State, 236 P.3d 381 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “Instead, the supreme court has taken the position that sentencing benchmarks serve only as guidelines, and that any sentencing decision ultimately must be justified on the particular facts of a defendant’s offense and background, evaluated in light of the sentencing criteria…”
State of Alaska v. Stacey Allen Graham, 513 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2022).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(4) — 5 cases
Juneby v. State, 665 P.2d 30 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “The state also protests that our treatment of the aggravating factor of physical injury is inconsistent with the basic holding of the Juneby opinion that the amount by which presumptive sentences should be increased or decreased in light of aggravating or mitigating factors must…”
Brianna Marie Peterson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 500 P.3d 314 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Anthony, 810 P.2d 155 (Alaska 1991).
State of Alaska v. Stacey Allen Graham, 513 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2022).
Michael Steven Cunningham v. State of Alaska, 536 P.3d 739 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(5) — 3 cases
Elizabeth Watson v. State of Alaska, 487 P.3d 568 (Alaska 2021).
Resek v. State, 706 P.2d 288 (Alaska 1985).
State of Alaska v. Stacey Allen Graham, 513 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2022).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(6) — 3 cases
State v. Brueggeman, 24 P.3d 583 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
State of Alaska v. Stacey Allen Graham, 513 P.3d 1046 (Alaska 2022).
James S. Stoneking v. State of Alaska, 567 P.3d 725 (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.005(7) — 1 case
State of Alaska v. Brennan Adam Grubb, 546 P.3d 586 (Alaska 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.