Opinion
Court of Appeals A-13287
08-18-2021
KEITH ALAN ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Megan R. Webb, Assistant Public Defender, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Hazel C. Blum, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
This is a summary disposition issued under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(a). Summary dispositions of this Court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d).
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Bethany S. Harbison, Judge. Trial Court No. 4FA-16-02448 CR
Megan R. Webb, Assistant Public Defender, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Hazel C. Blum, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Keith Alan Roberts was convicted, following a jury trial, of kidnapping, first-degreeburglary, second-degree robbery, and third-degree assault after hebrokeinto a man's house, threatened to kill him, stole some of his belongings, and then forced him to withdraw cash from a nearby ATM. Roberts raises two issues on appeal.
AS 11.41.300(a)(1)(A) & (d); AS 11.46.300(a)(1); AS 11.41.510; and AS 11.41.220(a)(1)(A), respectively.
First, Roberts argues that the superior court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial after his parole status was mentioned by a police detective during trial in violation of a protective order. We review a trial court's denial of a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion. Here, the trial court found that the prosecutor had not elicited the testimony and, indeed, had taken steps to try to ensure that the protective order was not violated. The trial court also concluded that the mere mention of Roberts's parole status, without further explanation for why Roberts was on parole, was unlikely to cause prejudice. We have reviewed the record and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Roussel v. State, 115 P.3d 581, 585 (Alaska App. 2005).
Roberts also argues that his sentence is excessive. We review a criminal sentence under the "clearly mistaken" standard, a deferential standard of review that recognizes a "permissible range of reasonable sentences which a reviewing court, after an independent review of the record, will not modify." As a third felony offender, Roberts faced a minimum composite term of 17 years and 1 day and a maximum composite term of 45 years. In addition to his violent conduct in this case, Roberts also had an extensive criminal history which began when he was a juvenile. The superior court sentenced Roberts to 23 years flat time. Given the conduct for which Roberts was convicted and his prior criminal history, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not clearly mistaken.
McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974).
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.