Alaska Stat. » Chapter 12.55
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 12.55.115 (2026)

Fixing eligibility for discretionary parole at sentencing

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.55.115. Fixing eligibility for discretionary parole at sentencing.
The court may, as part of a sentence of imprisonment, further restrict the eligibility of a prisoner for discretionary parole for a term greater than that required under AS 33.16.090 and 33.16.100.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: State v. Malloy, 46 P.3d 949 (Alaska 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Malloy, 46 P.3d 949 (Alaska 2002). · cites it 9× “125(a)-is ninety-nine years; 10 and under AS 12.55.115, a court sentencing a defendant for first-degree murder generally has authority to deny eligibility for discretionary parole, regardless of whether the court finds one of the aggravating cireumstances that trigger a…”
Riley v. State, 60 P.3d 204 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “In addition to sentencing Riley to serve 10 years in prison, Judge Steinkruger exercised her authority under AS 12.55.115 and ordered that Riley not be eligible for discretionary parole during this 10-year term.”
State v. Korkow, 314 P.3d 560 (Alaska 2013). · cites it 5× “28 This amendment was retained and expanded with the 1985 enactment of AS 12.55.115 and AS 33.16.090(b)(1), 29 which set one-third of an active sentence as a miam-mam restriction on both a sentencing court's and the Parole Board's authority to grant discretionary parole.”
Charles v. State, 780 P.2d 377 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “Charles recognizes that AS 12.55.115 gives the court discretion to restrict the eligibility of a prisoner for discretionary parole.”
Reyes v. State, 978 P.2d 635 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “155(a), or any minimum term set [by the judge] under AS 12.55.115 at sentencing, whichever is greater.”
Bates v. State, 258 P.3d 851 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “However, Judge McKay exercised his authority under AS 12.55.115 and declared that Bates would not be eligible to apply for discretionary parole until he served 20 years of the composite sentence.”
Newell v. State, 771 P.2d 873 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “c require that the defendant be sentenced for a term exceeding one year, may (1) designate in the sentence of imprisonment imposed a minimum term at the expiration of which the prisoner is eligible for parole, which term shall be at least one-third of the maximum sentence…”
Malloy v. State, 1 P.3d 1266 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “True, sentencing judges have the authority under AS 12.55.115 to restrict a defendant's normal eligibility for parole-or deny it altogether.”
Forster v. State, 236 P.3d 1157 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “The Alaska Supreme Court held that this provision did not violate the right to jury trial in Apprendi and Blakely because, under AS 12.55.115, the sentencing court had the statutory authority to impose a 99-year sentence with no eligibility for discretionary parole even without…”
Collins v. State, 778 P.2d 1171 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “If parole is not further restricted, AS 12.55.115, a person receiving a ninety-nine-year sentence must serve thirty-three years (one-third of the sentence) before becoming eligible for parole.”
Malloy v. State, 153 P.3d 1003 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “That is, even without proof of this aggravating factor, Malloy still faced a maximum sentence of 99 years' imprisonment, and the sentencing judge had the authority, under AS 12.55.115, to restrict or totally eliminate Malloy's eligibility for discretionary parole.”
KORKOW v. State, 258 P.3d 932 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Moreover, the parole restriction directly promoted the judge's primary sentencing consideration— the rights of Korkow's children as the surviving victims of this crime.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
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.