 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burns v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9543, No. 5236,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judge properly held, without jury trial, that defendant's prior New York conviction for attempted second-degree assault was an instance of assaultive behavior for purposes of a sentence-aggravating factor under Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155(c)(8) because under New York law, there could be no such conviction absent proof of intent to cause injury.
|
|||||
| Griest v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9741, No. 5235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant sought writ of habeas corpus. If appellant's request were treated as request for post-conviction relief, it was barred by statute of limitations; however, matter was remanded because a determination needed to be made as to whether claim did indeed rest on the Sixth Amendment, and appellant could proceed under Alaska R. Crim. P. 35(a).
|
|||||
| Huley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9544, No. 5237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court properly denied appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Alaska R. Crim. P. 11 because an expert repeatedly stated that he was unable to objectively verify the injury's impact on appellant's ability to enter a plea, and appellant failed to present any witnesses to testify that they noticed any impacts from the brain injury.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9279/A-9710, No. 5232,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Additional 18 months of a suspended sentence was properly imposed under former Alaska Stat. § 12.55.125 for defendant's probation violation even though the total time to serve after revocation exceeded presumptive term because presumptive sentencing provisions did not apply to sentence of first felony offender when his probation had been revoked.
|
|||||
| Payton v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9503, No. 5233,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support conviction for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute under Alaska Stat. § 11.71.030 because defendant's furtive arm and elbow movements, coupled with proximity to drugs on ground next to where he was standing prior to arrest, created a closer nexus between defendant and drugs than bystanders.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9657, No. 5234,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant entered plea of nolo contendere to manslaughter. Trial court did not err in imposing worst offender status, and even if this were error, the error was harmless. Defendant's sentence was not excessive because defendant agreed not to contest some aggravating factors, pursuant Alaska Stat. § 12.55.155, and sentence was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Burke P. v. State, Supreme Court No. S-12347, No. 6137,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a parental rights termination, superior court did not err in finding a youngest child was in need of aid, pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 47.10.011(6), because the child was in danger of substantial harm if he were returned to the parental home.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Supreme Court No. S-11793, No. 6136,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, June 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A superior court correctly held that a named driver exclusion in the insureds' automobile policy operated to exclude a pedestrian victim's claim for negligent entrustment as the excluded activity, their son's operation of a vehicle, was an indispensable element of a negligent entrustment claim. The exclusion was neither ambiguous nor illegal.
|
|||||
| Samples v. Municipality of Anchorage, Court of Appeals No. A-9719, No. 2107,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not deprive defendant, who was charged with speeding, of the right to a jury trial under U.S. Const. amend. VI or Alaska Const. art. I, § 11 because speeding was not an offense that carried a potential penalty of imprisonment, loss of driver's license, or a fine so large as to connote criminality.
|
|||||
| Spencer v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9024, No. 2108,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, June 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of kidnapping under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.300(a)(1)(C) and first-degree assault under Alaska Stat. § 11.41.200(a)(1) because defendant and a cohort restrained, bound, and repeatedly hit a victim over several hours, which resulted in injuries, including a broken ankle, a punctured lung, and broken ribs.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
