Opinion
No. 5960
07-17-2013
BRUCE RAYMOND GARLOCK, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Renee McFarland, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Melissa Wininger-Howard, 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.
Court of Appeals No. A-11125
Trial Court No. 3AN-03-4168 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND JUDGMENT
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Kari Kristiansen, Judge.
Appearances: Renee McFarland, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Melissa Wininger-Howard, Assistant District Attorney, Palmer, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Coats, Senior Judge.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to article IV, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 23(a).
COATS, Senior Judge.
In 2003, Bruce Raymond Garlock was indicted on several counts charging that he had sexually abused his daughter, T.R. Garlock entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. As part of the plea agreement, Garlock agreed that the court would impose concurrent sentences of eight years with four years suspended and that Garlock would be placed on probation for a period of five years. The court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Garlock accordingly.
In 2006, Garlock's probation was revoked for failure to comply with conditions of his sex offender treatment program. The court imposed ninety days of imprisonment.
In 2009, Garlock was again found in violation of his probation for failure to comply with the conditions of his sex offender treatment program. The court readmitted Garlock to probation.
In 2010, Garlock was found in violation of his probation for consuming alcohol and drugs. The court imposed eight months of imprisonment.
In 2011, Garlock was charged with violating his probation by ingesting cocaine and by associating with minors under the age of sixteen without written approval. Garlock admitted the violations.
At the time of disposition, Garlock faced approximately thirty-seven months of suspended time. In determining an appropriate sentence, the court emphasized that Garlock's original offense was extremely serious — Garlock had repeatedly sexually abused his daughter. The court pointed out that recently Garlock had entered into another relationship with a woman who had young children, and Garlock had been warned not to have any contact with these children without prior approval from his probation officer. Garlock violated this critical condition of his probation. The court also pointed out that when the probation officers came to the residence where Garlock was staying to determine if he was complying with his conditions of probation, Garlock had made threats to the probation officers. The court concluded that Garlock was "an extreme risk to the safety of children in this community." The court imposed all of the remaining time to serve.
Why we uphold the court's decision
In determining an appropriate sentence for a violation of probation, the court must consider all of the "currently available information and impose a sentence that would have been appropriate for the original offense had the trial court known the new information at the initial sentencing." The court is to consider the seriousness of the defendant's original offense, his conduct on probation, and the nature of his current probation violations.
Luepke v. State, 765 P.2d 988, 991 (Alaska App. 1988).
In the present case, the superior court found that Garlock's original offense was particularly serious. This finding is supported by the record. Garlock engaged in a long-term pattern of sexual abuse of his daughter. And, to reflect the seriousness of his conduct, as part of the original plea agreement with the State, Garlock agreed to the aggravating factor that his conduct was among the most serious conduct included in the definition of the offense. After numerous failures on probation, Garlock was found associating with young children without getting prior permission from his probation officer. In addition, Garlock tested positive for ingestion of cocaine. Furthermore, when he was confronted by his probation officers, Garlock threatened them.
AS 12.55.155(c)(10).
The superior court considered all of these factors in determining that it should impose all of Garlock's remaining suspended time. Although Garlock attempts to minimize his failures on probation, the record supports the court's findings. We conclude that the superior court was not clearly mistaken in imposing this sentence.
McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).
--------
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.