 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beasley v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8289, No. 1833,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing statute did not constrain the trial court from imposing a sentence, whether suspended or unsuspended, on first felony offender that exceeded the presumptive sentence for a third felony offender when aggravating factors were proven.
|
|||||
| Hughes v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7713, No. 1835,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that the reckless endangerment charge included two victims other than the defendant's estranged wife's boyfriend meant that this charge did not merge with the third-degree assault charge in which the sole victim was the boyfriend.
|
|||||
| Semancik v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7286, No. 1834,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 17, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of attempted burglary, failure of his indictment to specify his intended crime was fatal defect in indictment, and defendant was entitled to raise objection to indictment for first time on appeal.
|
|||||
| Andrus v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7673, No. 4631,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court was required to reconsider defendant's sentence for robbery because the subsidiary sentence was imposed in violation of the presumptive revised sentencing statutes.
|
|||||
| Bowman v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8068, No. 4626,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had long-term and continued violations of driving laws, including several DWI convictions, and injured two people while playing Russian roulette on the road, the seriousness of his offense warranted a lifetime license revocation.
|
|||||
| Frese v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7640, No. 4629,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where adequate foundation for exhibit was presented and defendant was granted a continuance to prepare, defendant waived his argument on appeal that more time was necessary for him to prepare for exhibit and testimony.
|
|||||
| Kignak v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8155, No. 4627,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where facts of defendant's arrest for DWI justified labeling defendant as a worst offender, trial court would have been warranted in imposing a greater sentence, but did not err in sentencing defendant to a composite six months in jail.
|
|||||
| Lisbourne v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-7991, No. 4628,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Improper comment by prosecution during closing argument involved a collateral matter and did not warrant a new trial as the evidence improperly referred to did not affect the determination of whether the cocaine belonged to defendant.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8009, No. 4630,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, October 23, 2002, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's application for post-conviction relief where he failed to shoulder his burden of proving his trial counsel was ineffective or that he was denied the opportunity to amend or supplement his application.
|
|||||
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. |
