Shaw v. State, 112118 AKCA, A-11982

Docket Nº:A-11982
Opinion Judge:ALLARD, JUDGE
Party Name:JACK RUEBEN SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Attorney:Morgan White, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and James E. Cantor, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge.
Case Date:November 21, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska
 
FREE EXCERPT

JACK RUEBEN SHAW, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-11982

Court of Appeals of Alaska

November 21, 2018

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Philip R. Volland, Superior Court Judge. Trial Court No. 3AN-05-7661 CR

Morgan White, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.

Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and James E. Cantor, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALLARD, JUDGE

Jack Rueben Shaw was released on probation after serving time in prison for attempted first-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Shaw's probation was later revoked for failing to successfully complete sex offender treatment, failing to comply with no-contact orders related to his victim and his other children, and engaging in unsupervised contact with female minors in violation of his probation conditions. On appeal, Shaw argues that there was insufficient evidence of these probation violations. For the reasons explained here, we affirm the revocation of Shaw's probation.

Factual Background

In 2006, Shaw pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted first-degree sexual abuse of a minor.1 His probation conditions required that he complete sex offender treatment, and that he abide by any special instructions issued by his probation officer. A few years later in 2010, pro tern Superior Court Judge David C. Stewart found Shaw in violation of the probation condition requiring him to complete sex offender treatment.

Judge Stewart modified the probation condition that previously prohibited Shaw from contacting his victim (one of his daughters) until she turned eighteen. The modified condition prohibited all future contact with the daughter unless she submitted written consent to the probation department. Having been further informed that Shaw's now-adult children also did not wish to have contact with Shaw, the judge also...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP