Shaw v. State, 122619 AKCA, A-12761

Docket Nº:A-12761
Opinion Judge:ALLARD, JUDGE
Party Name:JACK RUEBEN SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Attorney:Marilyn J. Kamm, Attorney at Law, Anchorage, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, for the Appellant. Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, andMannheimer, Senior Judge.
Case Date:December 26, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska
 
FREE EXCERPT

JACK RUEBEN SHAW, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-12761

Court of Appeals of Alaska

December 26, 2019

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Trial Court No. 3AN-05-07661 CR Jack W. Smith, Judge.

Marilyn J. Kamm, Attorney at Law, Anchorage, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, for the Appellant.

Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, Harbison, Judge, andMannheimer, Senior Judge. [*]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALLARD, JUDGE

In 2006, Jack Rueben Shaw pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree sexual abuse of a minor (attempted sexual penetration of a child by a parent).1 He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment with 5 years suspended, and a 5-year term of probation.

One of Shaw's probation conditions required him to successfully complete sex offender treatment. Successful treatment, however, has thus far eluded Shaw. Before the instant case, Shaw's probation had been revoked three times for failing to successfully complete sex offender treatment.2

The present case arises from the State's fourth petition to revoke Shaw's probation for failing to successfully complete sex offender treatment. Shaw contested this allegation, and the superior court held a hearing to adjudicate this issue. The court found that Shaw had violated his probation and extended his probation by 12 months.

Shaw now appeals, raising three claims regarding the adjudication and disposition of the petition to revoke his probation. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that none of Shaw's claims have merit.

Proceedings on the fourth petition to revoke Shaw's probation

At the hearing on the State's fourth petition to revoke Shaw's probation, Shaw's probation officer, Katelyn Perry, testified that two different sex offender treatment providers had concluded that Shaw was unamenable to treatment, and that there were no other available providers who would take him. Perry recommended that the court terminate Shaw's probation and impose all of his remaining time to serve (approximately 3 years and 11 months).

But Shaw's attorney presented evidence that Shaw's difficulty with sex offender treatment stemmed from an underlying and untreated personality disorder. Moreen Fried, a licensed clinical social worker, testified that Shaw needed cognitive behavioral therapy to address the "core pieces" of this personality disorder, because...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP