RONALD WILLIAMSON v. STATE OF ALASKA (2010)

NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent.  See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3).  Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Ronald C. Williamson was charged with driving while his driver's license was suspended.¹  The complaint affidavit stated that Williamson's license had been suspended until April 23, 2060, for driving under the influence, demerit points, driving while his license was revoked, refusal to submit to a chemical test, and failure to maintain liability insurance.   The affidavit also stated that Williamson had open alcohol containers in the vehicle and that his preliminary breath test result was .038 percent alcohol.

Williamson pled no contest as part of a plea bargain, and another pending charge was dismissed.   The prosecutor stated that Williamson had twenty-five prior convictions, including several prior convictions for driving with a revoked license, approximately ten convictions for driving under the influence, and a 1986 conviction for manslaughter.   The defense attorney noted that Williamson had received 180 days' imprisonment for his last conviction of driving with a revoked license in 2006.   Based on Williamson's criminal history and the circumstances of this offense, the judge concluded that Williamson was a worst offender for sentencing purposes.   The court imposed the maximum fine of $10,000,² and a near-maximum sentence of 360 days' imprisonment.³

Williamson appeals, contending that this sentence was excessive.   Generally, a maximum sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed unless the defendant can be characterized as a worst offender.⁴  A worst offender is defined as the worst type of offender within the group committing the offense in question.⁵  A worst- offender finding may be based on the defendant's criminal history, on the circumstances surrounding the offense, or both.⁶  A worst-offender designation is sufficient to justify the imposition of a maximum sentence of imprisonment.⁷

Williamson does not contest the record concerning his criminal history and the circumstances of this offense.   He argues only that his criminal convictions have become less frequent over the past fifteen years.   But the record does not suggest that Williamson has been rehabilitated:  he was convicted of both driving while his license was revoked and driving under the influence in 2006.

Williamson's criminal record was sufficient to support the judge's conclusion that Williamson was a worst offender.   The worst-offender designation was sufficient to support a maximum sentence for this offense.   We therefore conclude that Williamson's sentence was not clearly mistaken.⁸

We AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. AS 28.15.291(a)(1)..  FN1. AS 28.15.291(a)(1).

FN2. AS 12.55.035(b)(5)..  FN2. AS 12.55.035(b)(5).

FN3. AS 12.55.135(a) (“A defendant convicted of a class A misdemeanor may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not more than one year.”)..  FN3. AS 12.55.135(a) (“A defendant convicted of a class A misdemeanor may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not more than one year.”).

FN4. Howell v. State, 115 P.3d 587, 592-93 (Alaska App.2005)..  FN4. Howell v. State, 115 P.3d 587, 592-93 (Alaska App.2005).

FN5. Hintz v. State, 627 P.2d 207, 210 (Alaska 1981)..  FN5. Hintz v. State, 627 P.2d 207, 210 (Alaska 1981).

FN6. Howell, 115 P.3d at 593..  FN6. Howell, 115 P.3d at 593.

FN7. Brown v. State, 693 P.2d 324, 330 (Alaska App.1984)..  FN7. Brown v. State, 693 P.2d 324, 330 (Alaska App.1984).

FN8. See McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974) (adopting the clearly mistaken test for sentence appeals)..  FN8. See McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974) (adopting the clearly mistaken test for sentence appeals).

BOLGER, Judge.