Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175 (2026)
Three-judge sentencing panel
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.55.175. Three-judge sentencing panel.
(a) There is created within the superior court a panel of five superior court judges to be appointed by the chief justice in accordance with rules and for terms as may be prescribed by the supreme court. Three judges of the panel shall be designated by the chief justice as members. The remaining two judges shall be designated by the chief justice as first and second alternates to sit as members in the event of disqualification or disability in accordance with rules as may be prescribed by the supreme court.
(b) Upon receipt of a record of proceedings under AS 12.55.165, the three-judge panel shall consider all pertinent files, records, and transcripts, including the findings and conclusions of the judge who originally heard the matter. The panel may hear oral testimony to supplement the record before it. If the panel supplements the record, the panel shall permit the victim to testify before the panel. If the panel finds 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, it shall sentence the defendant in accordance with this section. If the panel does not find that manifest injustice would result, it shall remand the case to the sentencing court, with a written statement of its findings and conclusions, for sentencing under AS 12.55.125.
(c) The three-judge panel may in the interest of justice sentence the defendant to any definite term of imprisonment up to the maximum term provided for the offense or to any sentence authorized under AS 12.55.015.
(d) Sentencing of a defendant or remanding of a case under this section shall be by a majority of the three-judge panel.
(e) If the three-judge panel determines under (b) of this section that manifest injustice would result from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range and the panel also finds that the defendant has an exceptional potential for rehabilitation and that a sentence of less than the presumptive range should be imposed because of the defendant's exceptional potential for rehabilitation, the panel
(1) shall sentence the defendant within the presumptive range required under AS 12.55.125 or as permitted under AS 12.55.155;
(2) shall order the defendant under AS 12.55.015 to engage in appropriate programs of rehabilitation; and
(3) may provide that the defendant is eligible for discretionary parole under AS 33.16.090 during the second half of the sentence imposed under this subsection if the defendant successfully completes all rehabilitation programs ordered under (2) of this subsection.
(f) A defendant being sentenced for a sexual felony under AS 12.55.125(i) may not establish, nor may the three-judge panel find under (b) of this section or any other provision of law, that manifest injustice would result from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range 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.
(g) A defendant being sentenced under AS 12.55.125(c), (d), (e), or (i) may not establish, nor may a three-judge panel find under (b) of this section or any other provision of law, that manifest injustice would result from imposing a sentence within the presumptive range based, in whole or in part, on the claim that the sentence may result in the classification of the defendant as deportable under federal immigration law.
(a) There is created within the superior court a panel of five superior court judges to be appointed by the chief justice in accordance with rules and for terms as may be prescribed by the supreme court. Three judges of the panel shall be designated by the chief justice as members. The remaining two judges shall be designated by the chief justice as first and second alternates to sit as members in the event of disqualification or disability in accordance with rules as may be prescribed by the supreme court.
(b) Upon receipt of a record of proceedings under AS 12.55.165, the three-judge panel shall consider all pertinent files, records, and transcripts, including the findings and conclusions of the judge who originally heard the matter. The panel may hear oral testimony to supplement the record before it. If the panel supplements the record, the panel shall permit the victim to testify before the panel. If the panel finds 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, it shall sentence the defendant in accordance with this section. If the panel does not find that manifest injustice would result, it shall remand the case to the sentencing court, with a written statement of its findings and conclusions, for sentencing under AS 12.55.125.
(c) The three-judge panel may in the interest of justice sentence the defendant to any definite term of imprisonment up to the maximum term provided for the offense or to any sentence authorized under AS 12.55.015.
(d) Sentencing of a defendant or remanding of a case under this section shall be by a majority of the three-judge panel.
(e) If the three-judge panel determines under (b) of this section that manifest injustice would result from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range and the panel also finds that the defendant has an exceptional potential for rehabilitation and that a sentence of less than the presumptive range should be imposed because of the defendant's exceptional potential for rehabilitation, the panel
(1) shall sentence the defendant within the presumptive range required under AS 12.55.125 or as permitted under AS 12.55.155;
(2) shall order the defendant under AS 12.55.015 to engage in appropriate programs of rehabilitation; and
(3) may provide that the defendant is eligible for discretionary parole under AS 33.16.090 during the second half of the sentence imposed under this subsection if the defendant successfully completes all rehabilitation programs ordered under (2) of this subsection.
(f) A defendant being sentenced for a sexual felony under AS 12.55.125(i) may not establish, nor may the three-judge panel find under (b) of this section or any other provision of law, that manifest injustice would result from imposition of a sentence within the presumptive range 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.
(g) A defendant being sentenced under AS 12.55.125(c), (d), (e), or (i) may not establish, nor may a three-judge panel find under (b) of this section or any other provision of law, that manifest injustice would result from imposing a sentence within the presumptive range based, in whole or in part, on the claim that the sentence may result in the classification of the defendant as deportable under federal immigration law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012).
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The pertinent statute, AS 12.55.175(b) describes the panel's duty in the following manner: If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
Heathcock v. State, 670 P.2d 1155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “165 and AS 12.55.175. [2] Judge Serdahely explained that "[t]he most persuasive element in my conclusion .”
Smith v. State, 711 P.2d 561 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “155 or from imposition of the presumptive term, 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. Alaska…”
Luckart v. State, 270 P.3d 816 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The commentary to AS 12.55.175 strongly suggests that the jurisdiction of the three-judge panel is limited by the scope of the referral from the sentencing court.”
Luckart v. State, 314 P.3d 1226 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “The three-judge panel's sentencing authority is defined in AS 12.55.175. If the three-judge panel agrees with the individual sentencing judge that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence the defendant within the normal presumptive sentencing rules (even after the adjustments…”
State v. Seigle, 394 P.3d 627 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “At the same time, the legislature enacted a corresponding amendment to AS 12.55.175 (the statute defining the authority of the three-judge panel) by adding subsection (f).”
Nell v. State, 642 P.2d 1361 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “In the event the trial judge finds that a presumptive sentence would result in manifest injustice, he can refer the sentencing to a three judge panel which has the authority to impose a lesser sentence or probation.”
Walsh v. State, 677 P.2d 912 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984). “165; AS 12.55.175. We hold that Walsh’s 1947 larceny conviction can not be considered a prior felony for purposes of presumptive sentencing.”
Greywolf v. Carroll, 151 P.3d 1234 (Alaska 2007). “010 provides: (a) Victims of crimes have the following rights: (2) the right to be notified by the appropriate law enforcement agency or the prosecuting attorney of the date of trial, sentencing, including a proceeding before a three-judge panel under AS 12.55.175, an appeal,…”
Totemoff v. State, 739 P.2d 769 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “For all of these reasons we conclude that manifest injustice would not result from imposition of the presumptive term of 15 years and we therefore remand the case to the trial court for sentencing in accord with the presumptive sentencing scheme.”
Xeuy Sikeo v. State, 258 P.3d 906 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011). “125(c), (d)(2)-(4), (e)(3) and (4), or ), and [who] has not been allowed by the three-judge panel under AS 12.55.175 to be considered for discretionary parole release, may not be released on discretionary parole until the prisoner has served the term imposed, less good time…”
Woods v. State, 667 P.2d 184 (Alaska 1983). “155 or from imposition of the presumptive term, 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.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(b) — 13 cases
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The pertinent statute, AS 12.55.175(b) describes the panel's duty in the following manner: If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
Heathcock v. State, 670 P.2d 1155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “165 and AS 12.55.175. [2] Judge Serdahely explained that "[t]he most persuasive element in my conclusion .”
Beauvois v. State, 837 P.2d 1118 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992).
Shaw v. State, 673 P.2d 781 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983).
Totemoff v. State, 739 P.2d 769 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “For all of these reasons we conclude that manifest injustice would not result from imposition of the presumptive term of 15 years and we therefore remand the case to the trial court for sentencing in accord with the presumptive sentencing scheme.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(c) — 10 cases
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The pertinent statute, AS 12.55.175(b) describes the panel's duty in the following manner: If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
Smith v. State, 711 P.2d 561 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “155 or from imposition of the presumptive term, 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. Alaska…”
Garrison v. State, 762 P.2d 465 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988).
Luckart v. State, 314 P.3d 1226 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “The three-judge panel's sentencing authority is defined in AS 12.55.175. If the three-judge panel agrees with the individual sentencing judge that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence the defendant within the normal presumptive sentencing rules (even after the adjustments…”
Heathcock v. State, 670 P.2d 1155 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “165 and AS 12.55.175. [2] Judge Serdahely explained that "[t]he most persuasive element in my conclusion .”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(e) — 5 cases
Luckart v. State, 270 P.3d 816 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The commentary to AS 12.55.175 strongly suggests that the jurisdiction of the three-judge panel is limited by the scope of the referral from the sentencing court.”
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The pertinent statute, AS 12.55.175(b) describes the panel's duty in the following manner: If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
Luckart v. State, 314 P.3d 1226 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “The three-judge panel's sentencing authority is defined in AS 12.55.175. If the three-judge panel agrees with the individual sentencing judge that it would be manifestly unjust to sentence the defendant within the normal presumptive sentencing rules (even after the adjustments…”
Xeuy Sikeo v. State, 258 P.3d 906 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011). “125(c), (d)(2)-(4), (e)(3) and (4), or ), and [who] has not been allowed by the three-judge panel under AS 12.55.175 to be considered for discretionary parole release, may not be released on discretionary parole until the prisoner has served the term imposed, less good time…”
Gwalthney v. State, 964 P.2d 1285 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(e)(1) — 1 case
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The pertinent statute, AS 12.55.175(b) describes the panel's duty in the following manner: If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(e)(2) — 1 case
Gwalthney v. State, 964 P.2d 1285 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(e)(3) — 1 case
Garner v. State, 266 P.3d 1045 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “The pertinent statute, AS 12.55.175(b) describes the panel's duty in the following manner: If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider relevant aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS 12.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.55.175(f) — 2 cases
State v. Seigle, 394 P.3d 627 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “At the same time, the legislature enacted a corresponding amendment to AS 12.55.175 (the statute defining the authority of the three-judge panel) by adding subsection (f).”
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.