 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Dahl v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9383, No. 5165,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence where the officer had confirmed through independent official records that the owner of the vehicle he observed on the road had his license revoked and he observed that the driver was a white male with hair color similar to the registered owner. Thus, the stop was justified.
|
|||||
| Deneut v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9079, No. 5161,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was reversed where his allegations that he did not understand the elements of first-degree murder at the time he entered the plea, if true, would have established a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea under Alaska R. Crim. P. 11(h)(2).
|
|||||
| Gowan v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9388, No. 5164,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was affirmed where an officer's action in flashing his lights at her vehicle was ambiguous, the officer had clarified his actions by motioning to and yelling at defendant that she could pass, a reasonable person would have understood that she was free to leave, and thus, there had been no investigatory stop.
|
|||||
| Rose v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9420, No. 5163,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though the consecutive sentences imposed when probation was revoked and suspended imprisonment was ordered exceeded the maximum term for the most serious felony, the Neal-Mutschler rule was not violated since the sentence was necessary to protect the public; defendant had a lengthy criminal history, was an adult, and was not rehabilitated.
|
|||||
| Tyson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9410, No. 5162,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, January 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any error in the superior court's imposition of sentence for a recent police eluding incident without a jury trial on aggravator Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(2) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where defendant did not dispute that he was on felony probation at the time of the incident.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
