Love v. State, 113018 AKCA, A-11949

Docket Nº:A-11949
Opinion Judge:MANNHEIMER, JUDGE
Party Name:VICTORIA DIAMOND LOVE, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Attorney:Paul E. Malin, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Saritha R Anjilvel, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge.
Case Date:November 30, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska
 
FREE EXCERPT

VICTORIA DIAMOND LOVE, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-11949

Court of Appeals of Alaska

November 30, 2018

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, No. 3AN-13-2222 CR Michael R. Spaan, Judge.

Paul E. Malin, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Saritha R Anjilvel, Assistant District Attorney, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. [*]

OPINION

MANNHEIMER, JUDGE

Victoria Diamond Love assaulted three persons in another apartment in the complex where she lived. Following a jury trial, Love was convicted of second-, third-, and fourth-degree assault1 for slicing the fingers of one of her victims with a knife, for brandishing the knife in a threatening manner, and for putting another of her victims in fear of imminent physical injury.

The pre-sentence report in Love's case included two pages of recommended conditions of probation. Love's attorney did not object to any of these proposed probation conditions. In fact, the only time the defense attorney mentioned the proposed conditions of probation was when the attorney told the judge that Love did not object to a probation condition prohibiting her from returning to the apartment building.

When the judge imposed Love's sentence, he did not specifically mention all of these proposed probation conditions. Instead, the judge mentioned only a few of the special conditions of probation listed in the pre-sentence report. But later, when the judge issued the written judgement in Love's case, this judgement included all of the conditions of probation proposed in the pre-sentence report.

In this appeal, Love challenges four of the special conditions of probation that the judge did not explicitly mention when he imposed Love's sentence. Love contends that the inclusion of these four conditions in the court's written judgement constitutes an illegal increase in her sentence - a violation of the double jeopardy clause.2

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP