Allen v. Municipality of Anchorage case brief
168 P.3d 890
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
168 P.3d 890
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
appealed the judgment of the District Court, Third Judicial District,
Anchorage, Alaska, ordering her to serve a 30-day sentence and 10
years of probation upon her plea of no contest to two counts of
cruelty to animals.
FACTS: Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of cruelty to animals. She was ordered to serve 30-day sentence and was placed on probation for 10 years. Defendant appealed the conditions of her probation prohibiting her from possessing any animals other than her son's dog. Alaska Stat. § 22.07.020(c) granted the Court of Appeals of Alaska jurisdiction over all sentence appeals, except for those that challenge as excessive a term of imprisonment of 120 days or less. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over defendant's appeal and found the district court was justified in imposing the probation condition. The court noted the practical realities of supervising possession of animals, and her history of cruelty to animals. Prohibiting defendant from possessing animals was reasonably related to her rehabilitation and to protecting the public; the probation condition and was not unduly restrictive of her liberty.
CONCLUSION: The sentence was affirmed.
FACTS: Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of cruelty to animals. She was ordered to serve 30-day sentence and was placed on probation for 10 years. Defendant appealed the conditions of her probation prohibiting her from possessing any animals other than her son's dog. Alaska Stat. § 22.07.020(c) granted the Court of Appeals of Alaska jurisdiction over all sentence appeals, except for those that challenge as excessive a term of imprisonment of 120 days or less. The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over defendant's appeal and found the district court was justified in imposing the probation condition. The court noted the practical realities of supervising possession of animals, and her history of cruelty to animals. Prohibiting defendant from possessing animals was reasonably related to her rehabilitation and to protecting the public; the probation condition and was not unduly restrictive of her liberty.
CONCLUSION: The sentence was affirmed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment