mistaken standard in Alaska

1992As the Supreme Court reiterated in Wentz, 805 P.2d at 965 : [Ajnalytically, the clearly mistaken test [adopted in McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974) ] implies a permissible range of reasonable sentences which a reviewing court, after an independent review of the record, will not modify.

1991In adopting the "clearly mistaken" test, we noted that "[a]nalytically, the clearly mistaken test implies a permissible range of reasonable sentences which a reviewing court, after an independent review of the record, will not modify." McClain, 519 P.2d at 813 .

1987See Langton v. State, 662 P.2d 954, 962-63 (Alaska App.1983) (acknowledging that application of the clearly mistaken test to sentence review results in substantial, continuing disparity between those similarly situated).

1984We addressed this continuing potential for disparity in Langton , where we said: This unsatisfactory result [substantial disparity in sentences for those with similar backgrounds committing similar offenses] is a necessary concomitant of the substantial trial court discretion which still exists for first-felony offenders where the ultimate decision must rest upon an application of the clearly mistaken standard. 662 P.2d at 963 (footnote omitted).

2023The court emphasized that Walters had consistently rejected attempts at rehabilitative services and that “incalculable resources” had been devoted to Walters “to no avail.” It then found that the current offense “shows that there is no boundary to Mr. Walters’s instructing sentencing judges to assume that the defendant will serve the entire term of their imprisonment without release on discretionary parole when determining the proper length of a defendant’s sentence); see also Thomas v. State, 413 P.3d 1207, 1212 (Alaska App. 2018) (“Because release on discretionary parole is so difficult to o

2023The court emphasized that Walters had consistently rejected attempts at rehabilitative services and that “incalculable resources” had been devoted to Walters “to no avail.” It then found that the current offense “shows that there is no boundary to Mr. Walters’s instructing sentencing judges to assume that the defendant will serve the entire term of their imprisonment without release on discretionary parole when determining the proper length of a defendant’s sentence); see also Thomas v. State, 413 P.3d 1207, 1212 (Alaska App. 2018) (“Because release on discretionary parole is so difficult to o

2021“Sentencing decisions are reviewed under the clearly mistaken standard, giving deference to the sentencing court. ‘[T]he clearly mistaken test implies a permissible range of reasonable sentences which a reviewing court, after an independent 58 Dodge v. Municipality of Anchorage, 877 P.2d 270, 272 (Alaska App. 1994). 59 AS 12.55.051(c) provides, in part: “A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine or restitution may request a hearing regarding the defendants’ ability to pay the fine or restitution at any time that the defendant is required to pay all or a portion of the fine or restitutio

2006For example, Cynthia claims that the New Jersey Supreme Court held in State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 , 737 A.2d 55, 75-76 (1999), *702 that, because crime victims in New Jersey have a constitutional right to attend the trial, a crime victim has standing to object to a defendant’s request for change of venue if the new location would pose a substantial obstacle to the victim’s attending the trial.

2006For example, Cynthia claims that the New Jersey Supreme Court held in State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 , 737 A.2d 55, 75-76 (1999), *702 that, because crime victims in New Jersey have a constitutional right to attend the trial, a crime victim has standing to object to a defendant’s request for change of venue if the new location would pose a substantial obstacle to the victim’s attending the trial.

1987Our use of the clearly mistaken standard of review on this issue is consistent with our holding on rehearing in Juneby v. State, 665 P.2d 30, 36-37 (Alaska App.1983). 5 .

1982See, e.g., State v. Afcan, 583 P.2d 849 (Alaska 1978); McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974). 10 .

1975See AS 12.55.120; State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). 3 .The clearly mistaken standard of review was established in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 444 (Alaska 1970), and Nicholas v. State, 477 P.2d 447 (Alaska 1970).

1975See AS 12.55.120; State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). 3 .The clearly mistaken standard of review was established in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 444 (Alaska 1970), and Nicholas v. State, 477 P.2d 447 (Alaska 1970).