Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10314.
April 8, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, J. Patrick Hanley, Judge, Pro Tem, Trial Court No. 3AN-07-04069 CR.
Danika Swanson, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Marika Athens, Assistant District Attorney, Adrienne P. Bachman, District Attorney, Anchorage, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Frank L. Pushruk was convicted of felony driving under the influence, a class C felony, and driving while license suspended, a class A misdemeanor. Superior Court Judge Pro Tem J. Patrick Hanley sentenced Pushruk to 5 years with 1 year suspended and a $10,000 fine for driving under the influence. He imposed a consecutive sentence of 1 year with 6 months suspended and a $1000 fine for driving while license suspended, and sentenced Pushruk to 5 years of probation. Pushruk appeals, arguing the sentence Judge Hanley imposed was excessive and that it was inappropriate for Judge Hanley to impose the driving while license suspended sentence consecutively to the driving under the influence sentence. We affirm.
AS 28.35.030(n).
AS 28.15.291(a)(1).
In arguing that his sentence is excessive, Pushruk emphasizes his sentence for driving while license suspended. But in reviewing a sentence, we review the entire composite sentence in order to determine whether that sentence is excessive. Pushruk was a third-felony offender for purposes of presumptive sentencing and therefore faced a presumptive sentencing range of 3 to 5 years for the driving under the influence conviction. In sentencing Pushruk, Judge Hanley considered Pushruk's extensive prior criminal record. In addition to other convictions, Pushruk had five prior convictions for driving under the influence, including two felonies. In addition, Pushruk had four prior convictions for driving while his license was suspended. Judge Hanley noted that at the time of Pushruk's present offense, his license had already been suspended for life. He also noted that in spite of some limited success in rehabilitation programs, rehabilitation and suspended incarceration had been unsuccessful in deterring Pushruk from driving under the influence. Judge Hanley pointed out that Pushruk's conduct indicated complete disregard for the safety of other motorists and was strongly condemned by the community.
See Comegys v. State, 747 P.2d 554, 558-59 (Alaska App. 1987).
AS 12.55.125(e)(3).
Pushruk argues Judge Hanley did not make sufficient findings to justify imposing the driving while license suspended sentence consecutively. But, after considering Pushruk's prior record, Judge Hanley found that Pushruk posed a danger to the community and that Pushruk's conduct would probably support the imposition of a maximum sentence. It is clear from the record that Judge Hanley intended to impose 4½ years of actual imprisonment with an additional 18 months of suspended incarceration. His findings support the sentence he imposed. The sentence therefore is not clearly mistaken.
See McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).
The sentence is AFFIRMED.