# State v. Wortham

> Alaska Supreme Court · July 3, 1975 · 537 P.2d 1117

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546515

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Alaska, Appellant, v. John Mathis WORTHAM, Appellee
- **Court:** Alaska Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 3, 1975
- **Citations:** 537 P.2d 1117; 1975 Alas. LEXIS 270
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Connor
- **Judges:** Rabinowitz, Chief Justice, and Connor, Erwin, Boochever and Burke, Justices
- **Cited by:** 111 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546515

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546515. Public record. Not legal advice.