Hosier v. State, A-13655

CourtCourt of Appeals of Alaska
PartiesDONALD HOSIER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Docket NumberA-13655
Decision Date31 August 2022



No. A-13655

Court of Appeals of Alaska

August 31, 2022

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District Trial Court No. 1JU-17-00349 CR, Juneau, Philip M. Pallenberg, Judge.

Andrew C. Miller (opening memorandum) and Josh Carson (reply memorandum), Assistant Public Defenders, and Samantha Cherot, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Donald Soderstrom, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.


Donald Hosier pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of third-degree assault and one count of third-degree weapons misconduct for conduct that occurred in March 2017.[1] Pursuant to the plea agreement, Hosier was sentenced to 5 years with 3 years suspended (2 years to serve) and 5 years' probation.


After Hosier's probation was revoked twice for methamphetamine use, the State filed a third petition to revoke Hosier's probation - alleging that he had violated his probation in November 2019 and March 2020 by failing to report to his probation officer, possessing alcohol, possessing methamphetamine, refusing to submit to a chemical test for alcohol and controlled substances, and associating with a convicted felon. The State later withdrew the allegation related to the association with a convicted felon, and Hosier admitted to the conduct underlying the other allegations.

At the probation revocation hearing, Hosier argued that his sentencing was governed by the probation revocation statute that was in effect at the time he committed his underlying criminal offenses.[2] That probation revocation statute, which was repealed in 2019, limited the trial court's sentencing authority when the probation revocation was based only on "technical" probation violations.[3] "Technical" violations were defined as violations of the conditions of probation that did not constitute "(A) a new criminal offense; (B) failing to complete sex offender treatment; or (C) failing to complete an intervention program for batterers."[4]

The trial court disagreed that its sentencing decision was limited by the prior statute, and the court imposed 10 months of Hosier's suspended time.[5]


Hosier now appeals, arguing that the trial court violated...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT