Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

524 P.2d 664

Thomas v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided July 19, 1974

Alaska Supreme Court · decided 1974-07-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In Thomas v. State, 522 P.2d 528 , Opinion No. 1040 (1974), we affirmed appellant’s conviction for the sales of heroin .... Because the sentence to be served for those offenses is twice as long as the sentence to be served for the assault with a dangerous weapon offense, and because it seems unlikely that his service of the latter sentence will have any appreciable effect upon his parole eligibility, we have concluded that a detailed review of the latter sentence has been rendered superfluous. We affirm the sentence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Thomas v. State

Relies on Anders v. California · Thomas v. State · Berfield v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1974-07-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2009

9 state decisions

601974198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶2 Appellant was convicted upon a jury verdict of the offense of assault with a dangerous weapon, in violation of AS 11.-15.220. 1

¶3 He appeals both from the conviction and from the ten-year sentence imposed by the trial court.

¶4 The first question on appeal is whether a telephone, when used as a club to inflict injury upon the victim, can be considered a dangerous weapon. Our answer is in the affirmative. Berfield v. State, 458 P.2d 1008 (Alaska 1969), is dis-positive. Appellant’s counsel recognize this, and pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), have merely presented the question as being possibly arguable on appellant’s behalf. We affirm the conviction.

¶5 The second question on appeal is whether the maximum sentence of ten years is excessive. The sentence was imposed concurrently with sentences in another case in which appellant was found guilty on three counts of selling the narcotic drug heroin in violation of AS 17.10.010. In the heroin case the sentence was for two consecutive terms of ten years on each of two counts, and ten years on a third count, to be served concurrently with the other sentences. The sentence of ten years for assault with a dangerous weapon was to be served concurrently with the sentences for the sale of heroin. The court fixed eligibility for parole at one-third of the consecutive sentences, totaling 20 years, for selling heroin. No minimum term for parole eligibility was fixed as to the assault with a dangerous weapon conviction. Under the latter sentence, taken by itself, appellant may be considered for parole at any time. It is only the latter sentence which has been put in issue in this appeal.

¶6 In Thomas v. State, 522 P.2d 528, Opinion No. 1040 (1974), we affirmed appellant’s conviction for the sales of heroin mentioned above. Because the sentence to be served for those offenses is twice as long as the sentence to be served for the assault with a dangerous weapon offense, and because it seems unlikely that his service of the latter sentence will have any appreciable effect upon his parole eligibility, we have concluded that a detailed review of the latter sentence has been rendered superfluous. We affirm the sentence.

¶7 Affirmed.

1

¶8 . “Assault with dangerous weapon. A person armed with a dangerous weapon, who assaults another with the weapon, is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 10 years nor less than six months, or by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year nor less than one month, or by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100.”

/524/p2d/664 · .json · Public domain