Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Public Defense Blogs -> A Public Defender's Life in Alaska

Public Defense

: A Public Defender's Life in Alaska

So, the local magistrate reminded me today about a case where the Alaska Supreme Court got it wrong. In Alaska Board of Nursing v. Platt 169 P3d 595 (Alaska 2007), the Supreme Court gutted the idea of a suspended imposition of sentence. Alaska Statute 12.55.085 authorizes the superior court to suspend the imposition of a sentence and thereafter set aside a conviction if the defendant successfully completes a probationary period. It is not truly expunged but it was the best we had. The Court allowed the Board of Nursing to use the prior set aside convictions against her and refused to allow her to become a nurse. The question of whether or not she should have been a nurse is not the question. The question is 'what is the value of an SIS in Alaska'? The answer is 'not much'. It may take a defendant out of the presumptive sentencing scheme (which I can explain if people want) but Platt allows the collateral consequences of the conviction to remain. So, now I find it hard to recommend this 'deal'. The downside to an SIS is that the defendant is not sentenced. So, in theory, their exposure may be greater if they screw up. Let me explain. Let's say I can resolve a felony for 24 months with 20 months suspended OR get an SIS. The SIS would allow the fact of the felony conviction to be set aside if the client is sucessful on probation. But if he is not, the Court, depending on the facts, may be free to impose all of the possible 5 years on a C felony. It is a little more technical than that (with the "Austin" Rule and aggravators and mitigators) but I won't bore you with that. The point is the Court in Platt had two ways to go. And they chose the way that led to less freedom. I always hate that. I hope they do the right thing when Kadee's PFD appeal gets there.

Full post as published by A Public Defender's Life in Alaska on December 29, 2009 (boomark / email).