Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 28.35.230 (2026)
[Renumbered as
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1968–2001 · leading case: Anderson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 645 P.2d 205 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982).
Anderson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 645 P.2d 205 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “We believe that the issue of the lawfulness of Anderson's sentence is governed by AS 28.35.230, the pertinent provisions of which state: Penalty for violations of law, regulations, and municipal ordinances.”
State v. Clayton, 584 P.2d 1111 (Alaska 1978). “The state has applied to this court for original relief 1 from orders of the district *1112 court in the Fourth Judicial District quashing all warrants issued for failure to appear or satisfy fines in traffic cases involving “infractions” as defined in AS 28.35.230. 2 On July 3,…”
Manderson v. State, 655 P.2d 1320 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “291(a) 4 does not specify the maximum sentence which may be imposed for a DWSOL conviction, the general penalty provision of AS 28.35.230(b) applies. That provision reads: A person convicted of a misdemeanor for a violation of a provision of this title for which another penalty…”
Roberts v. State, 700 P.2d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “The state’s argument is that, since a license suspension is expressly authorized under former AS 28.35.230(b), and since that provision applies to persons convicted of DWLS, then it must follow that it is possible to suspend the license, or “privilege to drive,” of an unlicensed…”
Drahosh v. State, 442 P.2d 44 (Alaska 1968). “050(a) are punishable under AS 28.35.230 which provides as follows: Penalty for violations of law or rules and regulations.”
State v. Euteneier, 31 P.3d 111 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “See AS 28.35.230. 8 . See Clayton, 584 P.2d at 1113 .”
Francis v. Mun. of Anchorage, 641 P.2d 226 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “AS 28.35.230(a), (b). Although a violation of the former section carries no mandatory minimum sentence equivalent to the 10-day jail sentence, and one-year license revocation of the latter, the available maximum penalties are the same.”
State v. Dutch Harbor Seafoods, Ltd., 965 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1998). “The exceptions appear to merely codify existing constitutional law [citing Baker], Moreover, notwithstanding the legislative labeling of a traffic infraction a non-criminal offense by AS 28.35.230, it retains many criminal terms: [noting the terms “convicted,” “guilty,” and…”
Connolly v. State, 758 P.2d 633 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988). “When, as here, injury or death results from failure to render aid, the offense is the conceptual equivalent of a class B felony with a ten year maximum penalty. AS 28.35.-060(c).”
Epperly v. State, 648 P.2d 609 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “105(a) and the other registration statutes in pari materia do not specify a violation of the registration statutes as an infraction, and thus under AS 28.35.230 such a violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to ninety days’ imprisonment.”
— Alaska Stat. § 28.35.230(a) — 2 cases
Anderson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 645 P.2d 205 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “We believe that the issue of the lawfulness of Anderson's sentence is governed by AS 28.35.230, the pertinent provisions of which state: Penalty for violations of law, regulations, and municipal ordinances.”
Francis v. Mun. of Anchorage, 641 P.2d 226 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “AS 28.35.230(a), (b). Although a violation of the former section carries no mandatory minimum sentence equivalent to the 10-day jail sentence, and one-year license revocation of the latter, the available maximum penalties are the same.”
— Alaska Stat. § 28.35.230(b) — 3 cases
Manderson v. State, 655 P.2d 1320 (Alaska Ct. App. 1983). “291(a) 4 does not specify the maximum sentence which may be imposed for a DWSOL conviction, the general penalty provision of AS 28.35.230(b) applies. That provision reads: A person convicted of a misdemeanor for a violation of a provision of this title for which another penalty…”
Anderson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 645 P.2d 205 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “We believe that the issue of the lawfulness of Anderson's sentence is governed by AS 28.35.230, the pertinent provisions of which state: Penalty for violations of law, regulations, and municipal ordinances.”
Roberts v. State, 700 P.2d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “The state’s argument is that, since a license suspension is expressly authorized under former AS 28.35.230(b), and since that provision applies to persons convicted of DWLS, then it must follow that it is possible to suspend the license, or “privilege to drive,” of an unlicensed…”
— Alaska Stat. § 28.35.230(c) — 2 cases
Anderson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 645 P.2d 205 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “We believe that the issue of the lawfulness of Anderson's sentence is governed by AS 28.35.230, the pertinent provisions of which state: Penalty for violations of law, regulations, and municipal ordinances.”
State v. Clayton, 584 P.2d 1111 (Alaska 1978). “The state has applied to this court for original relief 1 from orders of the district *1112 court in the Fourth Judicial District quashing all warrants issued for failure to appear or satisfy fines in traffic cases involving “infractions” as defined in AS 28.35.230. 2 On July 3,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 28.35.230(d) — 2 cases
State v. Clayton, 584 P.2d 1111 (Alaska 1978). “The state has applied to this court for original relief 1 from orders of the district *1112 court in the Fourth Judicial District quashing all warrants issued for failure to appear or satisfy fines in traffic cases involving “infractions” as defined in AS 28.35.230. 2 On July 3,…”
State v. Euteneier, 31 P.3d 111 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “See AS 28.35.230. 8 . See Clayton, 584 P.2d at 1113 .”
— Alaska Stat. § 28.35.230(e) — 1 case
Anderson v. Mun. of Anchorage, 645 P.2d 205 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982). “We believe that the issue of the lawfulness of Anderson's sentence is governed by AS 28.35.230, the pertinent provisions of which state: Penalty for violations of law, regulations, and municipal ordinances.”
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.