 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Geisler v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8840, No. 5062,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery. Reconsideration of defendant's sentence was required because trial judge could have relied on two proposed aggravating factors, the possession of a firearm and risk of injury, which were prohibited aggravating factors under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(e).
|
|||||
| Rock v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9251, No. 5061,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant challenged his sentence for violation of his probation, arguing that the sentence was excessive, matter was transferred to the supreme court because, even though defendant did not have a right to appeal, he did have a right to petition for review pursuant to Alaska R. App. P. 215(a)(5) and 402(a)(1).
|
|||||
| Wallner v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8801, No. 5060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying motion to suppress grand jury indictment in which defendant was charged with first and second degree murder because, even though trial court suppressed defendant's confession, there was sufficient evidence, under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.100(a)(1)(A) to charge murder; inter alia, defendant stabbed his wife 43 times.
|
|||||
| Bodfish v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8746, No. 5063,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of sexual assault in the second degree for sexually penetrating victim while she was incapacitated, Alaska Stat. § 11.41.420(a)(3), because jury could find that (1) she was so intoxicated that she was unaware that she was engaging in sexual penetration; and (2) he was aware that victim was incapacitated.
|
|||||
| Gardner v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8881, No. 5064,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not show he was prejudiced where judge did not conduct a representation hearing where defendant agreed to be represented by his appointed post-conviction relief attorney. Supplemental memorandum filed by attorney satisfied Alaska R. Crim. P. 35.1. Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| Loring v. Hancock, Supreme Court No. S-11840, No. 1245,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150, a son's best interests would be served by awarding the mother full legal and shared physical custody as, inter alia, 1) the father lacked awareness of his intrusive behaviors when interacting with his son; and 2) the parents did not communicate well, threatening stability and continuity of the son's home environment.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Ross, Supreme Court No. S-11627/S-11657, No. 1244,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, March 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In awarding mother primary physical custody, trial court's best interest findings under Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150(c) were supported by the evidence as, inter alia, 1) mother was primary caretaker of the children; 2) she was better parent when it came to meeting educational needs; and 3) despite her DWI conviction, she behaved as responsible parent.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
