holding that a maximum sentence should not be imposed without some foundation for characterizing a defendant as the worst type of offender and listing some of the factors which could support such a characterization
How later courts described this case
- holding that a maximum sentence should not be imposed without some foundation for characterizing a defendant as the worst type of offender and listing some of the factors which could support such a characterization
- holding that the sentencing court should not impose a maximum sentence without either an explicit or implicit worst offender finding
- requiring consideration of prior criminal convictions, age, military records, employment history, drug or alcohol addiction, pre-sentence report evaluations and recommendations, dangerous propensities and possibility of anti-social personalities
- indicating that a portion of the defendant's sentence should have been made consecutive to the federal sentence that he was already serving
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONNOR, Justice
(dissenting).
In view • of Wortham’s lengthy criminal record, I have no difficulty in classifying him as the worst type of offender in terms of committing repeated crimes of the larcenous variety. The record reveals few mitigating factors which would support a lenient sentence.
In my view of the record, the trial judge did carefully consider and weigh the factors set forth in State v. Chaney, 447 P.2d 441 (Alaska 1970). Probably he selected a four-year sentence in view of the circumstances of the offense and the amount of money which was taken.
Even though the sentence does not run consecutively to the federal sentence, it nevertheless does express community condemnation of Wortham’s antisocial conduct. Moreover the imposition of this sentence may affect the grant of parole by federal authorities, so that it does have consequences beyond merely running concurrently with the federal sentence.
Considering the nature of the offense I think the four-year sentence was within a zone of reasonableness and that the trial judge was not clearly mistaken in imposing it.
I would approve the sentence.