# Michael v. State

> Alaska Supreme Court · June 9, 2005 · 115 P.3d 517

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785903

## Case

- **Full name:** Peter R. MICHAEL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent
- **Court:** Alaska Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 9, 2005
- **Citations:** 115 P.3d 517; 2005 Alas. LEXIS 78; 2005 WL 1369030
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fabe
- **Judges:** Fabe, Bryner, Matthews, Eastaugh, Fare, Carpeneti
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Pocock v. State, 2012 Alas. App. LEXIS 31 (2012).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785903

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that when an appellate court reviews a sentencing judge’s ruling on a proposed mitigating factor, the appellate court applies the deferential “clearly erroneous” standard of review when evaluating the sentencing judge’s findings of historical fact, but the appellate co…
- concluding that "[aluy factual findings made by the court regarding the nature of the defendant's conduct are reviewed for clear error, but whether those facts establish that the conduct [qualifies as an aggravating or mitigating factor under the terms of a sentencing statute]…
- holding that it is a question of law-i.e., a question to be decided by an appellate court without deference to the sentencing judge-whether given facts establish the miti-gator of conduct "among the least serious"
- holding that the correct standard of review for the application of statutory aggravating and mitigating factors is de novo review
- holding that it is a question of law whether given facts establish a statutory mitigating factor

## Opinion text

FABE, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the court’s order but write separately to express one concern about directing Michael’s release without specifying the maximum term of imprisonment beyond which the sentence would be excessive. Although the court’s approach is efficient, the Department of Corrections cannot calculate a new release date without knowledge of the maximum term of incarceration possible for Michael’s sentence. And because first-degree sexual assault is an unclassified felony, Michael is not entitled to release on bail. 1 Thus, I would prefer to inform the lower courts of the maximum term that can be justified for Michael’s conduct.
. AS 12.30.040(b)(1); AS 11.41.410(b).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9785903. Public record. Not legal advice.