Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-12043 No. 6389
10-05-2016
JAMIE LYNN BUTLER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Andrew Steiner, Attorney at Law, Bend, Oregon, for the Appellant. James J. Fayette, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and James E. Cantor, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
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 authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3AN-14-972 CR MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Douglas Kossler, Judge. Appearances: Andrew Steiner, Attorney at Law, Bend, Oregon, for the Appellant. James J. Fayette, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and James E. Cantor, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. PER CURIAM.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
On January 23, 2014, Jamie Lynn Butler entered the Bottoms Boutique in downtown Anchorage. Butler picked up a pair of jeans valued at approximately $300 and placed them in a bag, and then placed two more pairs of jeans over her arm. The store owner confronted Butler and demanded that she return the merchandise, but Butler refused and attempted to push past the owner. When the owner stood her ground, Butler threw down the jeans, shoved the owner into the wall, and left the store.
Based on this conduct, Butler was charged with concealment of merchandise valued between $50 and $500, a class A misdemeanor. The case proceeded to trial, where Butler testified in her own defense. The jury convicted Butler.
Former AS 11.46.220(c)(2)(A) (2012).
At the time of sentencing, Butler was forty-five years old with an extensive criminal history of prior thefts. She had eleven prior theft convictions, including a felony theft conviction in 2007. Butler violated her felony probation twice in the 2007 felony theft case and ultimately served 2 years in that case. Butler had no additional convictions between 2008 and the present offense.
District Court Judge pro tem Douglas Kossler found that Butler was a worst offender based on her criminal history and sentenced her to 360 days of imprisonment with 90 days suspended — 270 days to serve. Butler appeals this sentence as excessive.
See State v. Wortham, 537 P.2d 1117, 1120-21 (Alaska 1975) (worst-offender finding can be based on a defendant's conduct in the current case or the defendant's criminal history, or both).
We review a claim that a criminal sentence is excessive under the "clearly mistaken" standard of review. This is a deferential standard of review that requires an independent review of the record but also gives considerable leeway to individual sentencing judges. The clearly mistaken test is founded on two concepts: first, that reasonable judges confronted with identical facts can and will differ on what constitutes an appropriate sentence; and second, that society is willing to accept these sentencing discrepancies, so long as a judge's sentencing decision falls within a permissible range of reasonable sentences.
State v. Korkow, 314 P.3d 560, 562 (Alaska 2013) (quoting Erickson v. State, 950 P.2d 580, 586 (Alaska App. 1997)).
Id.
Id.
Here, the court found that Butler was a worst offender based on her significant criminal history. The court acknowledged that she had made strides toward rehabilitation during the preceding six years, but it also found that her chances for rehabilitation were not promising in light of her failures on felony probation and the assaultive nature of the current theft. The court therefore focused on the goals of community condemnation and deterrence in fashioning Butler's sentence.
See Wortham, 537 P.2d at 1120-21.
We have independently reviewed the record, and we conclude that the sentence in this case was not clearly mistaken. We accordingly AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
See McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974). --------