Opinion
A-13827 0316
03-29-2023
DANIEL C. LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Michael L. Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Thomas C. Mooney-Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Trial Court No. 4FA-17-02382 CI, Thomas I. Temple, Judge.
Michael L. Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Thomas C. Mooney-Myers, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Daniel C. Lewis filed an application for post-conviction relief challenging the Alaska Parole Board's denial of his request to reconsider its prior revocation of his parole. The superior court concluded that the parole board's decision to deny Lewis's request was supported by a "reasonable basis," and dismissed Lewis's application.Lewis now appeals that ruling.
See AS 12.72.020(c)(1).
Alexander v. State, 38 P.3d 543, 545 (Alaska App. 2001) (citation omitted).
Lewis's parole was revoked in 2017 after he pleaded guilty to a new crime of third-degree assault. As described by the parole board, Lewis attempted to force himself on his wife while he was intoxicated and grabbed her neck and attempted to strangle her. At the 2017 revocation hearing, the parole board told Lewis that he needed to engage in treatment, potentially including domestic violence intervention, anger management, and substance abuse treatment. Lewis completed a number of treatment programs over the next two years, and then asked the parole board to reconsider its revocation. The parole board denied Lewis's request.
On appeal, Lewis argues that the parole board failed to articulate a reasonable basis upon which to deny his request. He acknowledges that the parole board's statement that he should seek treatment was not a promise that it would release him if he obtained that treatment. But he argues that given his completion of treatment, the parole board failed to articulate a reasonable basis upon which to deny his request for reconsideration of the parole revocation.
We have reviewed the parole board's decision and we agree with the superior court that the board articulated a reasonable basis upon which to deny Lewis's request for reconsideration of the parole revocation. The board noted that Lewis had a lengthy criminal history, including "numerous offenses that were assaultive in nature" and "many more that were committed while [Lewis was] under the influence of alcohol." The board also noted that Lewis had been unsuccessful during his prior period of community supervision. The board acknowledged Lewis had completed rehabilitative programs while in custody, and that this treatment may have partially mitigated his risk to the public, but it concluded that it could not ignore "the danger [Lewis] present[s] to the public or domestic partners." The board's conclusions are supported by evidence in the record and were not an abuse of discretion.
See id.
We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court.