Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.55.165 (2026)
Extraordinary circumstances
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.55.165. Extraordinary circumstances.
(a) If the defendant is subject to sentencing under AS 12.55.125(c), (d), (e), or (i) and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.55.155 or from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range, whether or not adjusted for aggravating or mitigating factors, the court shall enter findings and conclusions and cause a record of the proceedings to be transmitted to a three-judge panel for sentencing under AS 12.55.175.
(b) In making a determination under (a) of this section, the court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel based on the defendant's potential for rehabilitation if the court finds that a factor in aggravation set out in AS 12.55.155(c)(2), (8), (10), (12), (15), (17), (18)(B), (20), (21), or (28) is present.
(c) A court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel under (a) of this section if the defendant is being sentenced for a sexual felony under AS 12.55.125(i) and the request for the referral is based solely on the claim that the defendant, either singly or in combination, has
(1) prospects for rehabilitation that are less than extraordinary; or
(2) a history free of unprosecuted, undocumented, or undetected sexual offenses.
(d) A court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel under (a) of this section if the request for referral is based, in whole or in part, on the claim that a sentence within the presumptive range may result in the classification of the defendant as deportable under federal immigration law.
(a) If the defendant is subject to sentencing under AS 12.55.125(c), (d), (e), or (i) and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.55.155 or from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range, whether or not adjusted for aggravating or mitigating factors, the court shall enter findings and conclusions and cause a record of the proceedings to be transmitted to a three-judge panel for sentencing under AS 12.55.175.
(b) In making a determination under (a) of this section, the court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel based on the defendant's potential for rehabilitation if the court finds that a factor in aggravation set out in AS 12.55.155(c)(2), (8), (10), (12), (15), (17), (18)(B), (20), (21), or (28) is present.
(c) A court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel under (a) of this section if the defendant is being sentenced for a sexual felony under AS 12.55.125(i) and the request for the referral is based solely on the claim that the defendant, either singly or in combination, has
(1) prospects for rehabilitation that are less than extraordinary; or
(2) a history free of unprosecuted, undocumented, or undetected sexual offenses.
(d) A court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel under (a) of this section if the request for referral is based, in whole or in part, on the claim that a sentence within the presumptive range may result in the classification of the defendant as deportable under federal immigration law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 116
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Heathcock v. State, 670 P.2d 1155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).
Heathcock v. State, 670 P.2d 1155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “" and referred the case to the three-judge panel so that it could consider giving less than the presumptive sentence pursuant to its authority under the provisions of AS 12.55.165 and AS 12.55.175. [2] Judge Serdahely explained that "[t]he most persuasive element in my…”
Smith v. State, 711 P.2d 561 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “125(c), (d)(1), (d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(2), or (i) and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
State v. Seigle, 394 P.3d 627 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “16 In section 1(c) of this session law, the legislature further declared that it intended to overturn the majority decision in Collins and to endorse the position expressed in Judge Bolger’s dissenting opinion: (c) It is the intent of the legislature in AS 12.55.165, as amended…”
Milligrock v. State, 118 P.3d 11 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “155(c), or unless the State proved extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165. In particular, the pre-2005 version of AS 12.”
Haag v. State, 117 P.3d 775 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “155(c), or unless the State proved extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165. The pre-2005 versions of AS 12.”
Dancer v. State, 715 P.2d 1174 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986). “In Smith , we recognized that the legislature intended that AS 12.55.165 establish two separate bases for referral of a case from a trial court to a three-judge panel for sentencing.”
Juneby v. State, 641 P.2d 823 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “See AS 12.55.165 and 12.55.175. The second alternative, provided for in AS 12.”
Lloyd v. State, 672 P.2d 152 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “He first contends that Judge Bucka-lew committed error by adopting an incorrect standard for determining manifest injustice under AS 12.55.165. Lloyd urges us to find that Judge Buckalew erred when he indicated that a sentence would be manifestly unjust only if it would “shock…”
Beasley v. State, 56 P.3d 1082 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002). “155(c) is present, or that circumstances exist that would warrant a referral to the three-judge panel under AS 12.55.165. Thus, in its amended form, Committee Substitute for HB 396(Jud), the bill expressly adopted the Buoy decision.”
Greist v. State, 121 P.3d 811 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “155(c), or extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165, a first felony offender convicted of a class C felony could not receive more than 2 years to serve — the presumptive term established for second felony offenders convicted of class C felonies.”
Harapat v. State, 174 P.3d 249 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “Under AS 12.55.165, there are two discrete situations that require a sentencing judge to refer a case to the three-judge panel.”
Cleveland v. State, 143 P.3d 977 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “155(c), or unless the State proved extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165. [[Image here]] Under Alaska’s pre-2005 presumptive sentencing law, proof of aggravating factors (or proof of extraordinary circumstances) expanded the range of sentences available to the…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.165(a) — 16 cases
Michael v. State, 115 P.3d 517 (Alaska 2005).
Milligrock v. State, 118 P.3d 11 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “155(c), or unless the State proved extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165. In particular, the pre-2005 version of AS 12.”
Haag v. State, 117 P.3d 775 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “155(c), or unless the State proved extraordinary circumstances as defined in AS 12.55.165. The pre-2005 versions of AS 12.”
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012).
Beltz v. State, 980 P.2d 474 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.165(b) — 4 cases
Mark Wayne King v. State of Alaska, 487 P.3d 242 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021).
Moore v. State, 262 P.3d 217 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011).
State v. McKinney, 946 P.2d 456 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997).
Adrian T. Olmstead v. State of Alaska, 477 P.3d 656 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.165(c) — 2 cases
State v. Seigle, 394 P.3d 627 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “16 In section 1(c) of this session law, the legislature further declared that it intended to overturn the majority decision in Collins and to endorse the position expressed in Judge Bolger’s dissenting opinion: (c) It is the intent of the legislature in AS 12.55.165, as amended…”
State v. Seigle (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
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.