Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11724 No. 6076
08-06-2014
JAMES TERRY CORNING, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Ariel J. Toft, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Melissa N. Wohlfeil, Assistant District Attorney, Palmer, and Michael C. Geraghty, 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. 3PA-13-1612 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, John Wolfe, Judge. Appearances: Ariel J. Toft, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Melissa N. Wohlfeil, Assistant District Attorney, Palmer, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Hanley, District Court Judge. PER CURIAM.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to article IV, section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, James Terry Corning was convicted of fourth-degree assault for assaulting his girlfriend. Sentencing was open, and District Court Judge John Wolfe sentenced Corning to serve 360 days in jail. Corning appeals, arguing that the sentence is excessive and unsupported by a worst offender finding. We affirm.
AS 11.41.230(a)(1) (recklessly caused physical injury to another person).
At the sentencing hearing, the sentencing court found that "isolation and deterrence" were the primary goals of Corning's sentence. The court based this finding on the seriousness of the assault and Corning's prior criminal history. The court specifically found that Corning's fourth-degree assault qualified as a "worst offense." The court found that Corning had actually committed a series of assaults against his girlfriend over a period of days, and the court referred to photographs of the victim's bruises as "shocking." The court also found that the victim was particularly vulnerable because she was using a walker and was already injured at the time of the assaults.
See State v. Chaney, 477 P.2d 441, 444 (Alaska 1970); AS 12.55.005 (codifying the Chaney sentencing goals).
The sentencing court's remarks also focused on Corning's past criminal history, finding it both lengthy and significant. This history included a prior felony and three prior assault convictions. Corning also had a recent misdemeanor DUI conviction for which he was still on probation at the time of the offense.
Corning argues on appeal that the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to Corning's potential for rehabilitation. Corning points out that he was in an alcohol program at the time of the offense and that he had not yet had the opportunity to engage in a domestic violence treatment program. But the record supports the sentencing court's assessment that rehabilitation was "low on the scale of sentencing criteria" in this case, partly because Corning lacked "any insight into his behavior." We note that despite being on probation for an alcohol-related offense and in alcohol treatment, Corning was nevertheless intoxicated when he was arrested for this offense. And in his allocution to the sentencing court, Corning repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claimed that the victim's injuries were caused by her own drinking.
Corning's other argument on appeal is that the sentencing court failed to make a "worst offender" finding. We conclude that this finding was made — both explicitly through the sentencing court's finding that the offense in this case was a "worst offense" and implicitly through the sentencing court's comments on the seriousness of Corning's criminal history.
See Weitz v. State, 794 P.2d 952, 958 (Alaska App. 1990) (worst offender finding can be based on current offense or criminal history or both); Napayonak v. State, 793 P.2d 1059, 1062 (Alaska App. 1990) (upholding maximum sentence based on trial court's implicit worst offender finding).
--------
Thus, having independently reviewed the record, we reject Corning's claim that the court made no worst offender finding and conclude that Corning's sentence is not clearly mistaken. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.