7 Alaska opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chaneygreen2 sentences1975At the sentence hearing the superior court, after considering the various goals of sentencing as enunciated in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970), sentenced Mr. Gibson to three years imprisonment with two years suspended. 1975At the sentence hearing the superior court, after considering the various goals of sentencing as enunciated in State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970), sentenced Mr. Gibson to three years imprisonment with two years suspended. | 1 | 2 |
Marks v. Stategreen1 sentence2023But the law is well-settled that when a probation condition requires a defendant to attend residential treatment, the court must specify the maximum period 35 See Marks v. State, 496 P.2d 66, 67-68 (Alaska 1972) (requiring an appellate court to independently evaluate any concession of error by the State in a criminal case). – 23 – 2748 of custodial treatment.36 Moreover, once a sentence has been imposed, the court generally cannot “correct” such a mistake on remand, because doing so constitutes an illegal increase in the defendant’s sentence in violation of the prohibition against double jeopa | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ransteadgreen1 sentence2021We therefore reverse the portion of Special Condition No. 5 authorizing residential treatment.21 17 See AS 12.55.100(c) (providing that a program of inpatient treatment must be authorized, and may not exceed a maximum term of inpatient treatment specified, in the judgment); Christensen v. State, 844 P.2d 557, 558-59 (Alaska App. 1993) (holding that a probation condition requiring residential treatment if recommended by a substance abuse evaluation was illegal because it failed to set a maximum period for such treatment). 18 See State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15, 24 (Alaska 2018) (“[A]n illegal co | 1 | 1 |
Christensen v. Stategreen2 sentences2021We therefore reverse the portion of Special Condition No. 5 authorizing residential treatment.21 17 See AS 12.55.100(c) (providing that a program of inpatient treatment must be authorized, and may not exceed a maximum term of inpatient treatment specified, in the judgment); Christensen v. State, 844 P.2d 557, 558-59 (Alaska App. 1993) (holding that a probation condition requiring residential treatment if recommended by a substance abuse evaluation was illegal because it failed to set a maximum period for such treatment). 18 See State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15, 24 (Alaska 2018) (“[A]n illegal co 2021We therefore reverse the portion of Special Condition No. 5 authorizing residential treatment.21 17 See AS 12.55.100(c) (providing that a program of inpatient treatment must be authorized, and may not exceed a maximum term of inpatient treatment specified, in the judgment); Christensen v. State, 844 P.2d 557, 558-59 (Alaska App. 1993) (holding that a probation condition requiring residential treatment if recommended by a substance abuse evaluation was illegal because it failed to set a maximum period for such treatment). 18 See State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15, 24 (Alaska 2018) (“[A]n illegal co | 1 | 1 |
Dodge v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen1 sentence2021We therefore reverse the portion of Special Condition No. 5 authorizing residential treatment.21 17 See AS 12.55.100(c) (providing that a program of inpatient treatment must be authorized, and may not exceed a maximum term of inpatient treatment specified, in the judgment); Christensen v. State, 844 P.2d 557, 558-59 (Alaska App. 1993) (holding that a probation condition requiring residential treatment if recommended by a substance abuse evaluation was illegal because it failed to set a maximum period for such treatment). 18 See State v. Ranstead, 421 P.3d 15, 24 (Alaska 2018) (“[A]n illegal co | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence2024Johnson v. State, 328 P.3d 77, 82-85 , 82 n.20 (Alaska 2014). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jensen
green
1 sentence1983Id. at 425 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Rosenberg v. Carroll
green
1 sentence1969The validity of a contract bet\veen the Attorney General of the United States and the State to transfer federal prisoners to state physical custody as provided in U.S.C.A., Title 18, § 4002 was affirmed in Rosenberg v. Carroll, 99 F.Supp. 630 (D.C.N.Y.1951) and the validity of a contract between the Attorney General of the United States and a State to accept transfer of a state prisoner into federal physical custody as provided by U.S.C.A., Title 18, § 5003 was affirmed in Duncan, supra. 6 We therefore conclude that appellant’s present incarceration upon a sentence for violation of Alaska’s bu | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.