Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
Law Offices of James B. Gottstein.
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 333-5869

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Robbins v. State (08/20/2004) ap-1947

Robbins v. State (08/20/2004) ap-1947

                             NOTICE
     The  text  of this opinion can be corrected before  the
     opinion  is published in the Pacific Reporter.  Readers
     are  encouraged to bring typographical or other  formal
     errors  to  the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate
     Courts:

             303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
                      Fax:  (907) 264-0878
       E-mail:  corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us


         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA


DARREN L. ROBBINS,            )
                              )            Court of Appeals No. A-
8724
                               Appellant,    )        Trial Court
No. 4FA-03-861 CR
                              )
                 v.           )
                              )                    O  P  I  N   I
O  N
STATE OF ALASKA,              )
                              )
                                Appellee.     )         [No. 1947
August 20, 2004]
                              )

          Appeal  from the Superior Court, Fourth  Judi
          cial   District,  Fairbanks,  Mark  I.  Wood,
          Judge.

          Appearances:  William R. Satterberg Jr.,  Law
          Offices   of   William  R.  Satterberg   Jr.,
          Fairbanks,  for Appellant.  Jenel  M.  Domke,
          Assistant   District  Attorney,  Jeffrey   A.
          OBryant,  District Attorney,  Fairbanks,  and
          Gregg  D.  Renkes, Attorney General,  Juneau,
          for Appellee.

          Before:  Coats,  Chief Judge, and  Mannheimer
          and Stewart, Judges.
          
          STEWART, Judge.
          MANNHEIMER, Judge, concurring.


          Darren  L.  Robbins reached a plea agreement  with  the

State  and  pleaded no contest to one count of  attempted  first-

degree sexual abuse of a minor.1  In this appeal, Robbins attacks

one  probation condition imposed by the superior court.   Robbins

          argues that the probation condition that orders him to pay up to

40% of net income for the support of his family is not reasonably

related  to  his rehabilitation or the protection of the  public.

Because the legislature empowered a sentencing judge to impose  a

condition  of probation that requires a defendant to support  his

dependents, we reject Robbinss argument and affirm his sentence.



          Background facts and proceedings

          On  the  evening  of March 10, 2003,  Robbins  sexually

abused  his  eleven-year-old daughter by engaging in cunnilingus.

She  told  him to stop it, thats not right.  Robbins  asked  her,

[d]ont you like your special massage?  She answered that she  did

not.

          The  next morning, as Robbinss daughter was leaving  to

catch  the  school bus, Robbins asked her again if she liked  her

special  massage.  She again told Robbins that she did  not,  and

Robbins  asked [w]as I not good enough for you?  When she arrived

at  school,  she told the principal about Robbinss sexual  abuse.

The  principal passed this report on to the Department of  Family

and   Youth  Services.   The  Alaska  State  Troopers  were  also

contacted.

          An  immediate  investigation  led  to  the  grand  jury

indicting Robbins on one count of first-degree sexual abuse of  a

minor.2   Robbins reached a plea agreement with  the  State  that

called  for  Robbins to plead to the reduced charge of  attempted

first-degree  sexual abuse of a minor, a class A  felony  with  a

presumptive 5-year term.3  The plea agreement placed a 5-year cap

on the unsuspended term that the court could impose.

          Robbinss wife spoke at the sentencing and read a letter

from Robbinss daughter.  Robbinss incarceration had a substantial

impact  on the family.  Robbinss wife and the children could  not

make it financially on their own.  They lost their house and  had

to move out of state.

          Robbins  conceded  that  several statutory  aggravating

factors   from  AS  12.55.155  applied:   (c)(5),  (c)(10),   and

          (c)(18)(A).   Superior Court Judge Mark I. Wood imposed an 8-year

term  with  3 years suspended.  As indicated above, he imposed  a

probation  condition that required Robbins to send up to  40%  of

his net income to the support of his family.



          Discussion

          Judges   may  condition  probation  on  the  defendants

payment  of money in a few limited circumstances.  The sentencing

judge  may  condition probation on the payment  of  a  fine,  the

payment  of restitution to aggrieved parties,4 or the payment  of

support  to  persons for whose support the defendant  is  legally

responsible.5   Judge  Wood  evidently  imposed  the   challenged

probation   condition   under  the   authority   stated   in   AS

12.55.100(a)(3),  which  states  that,  while  on  probation,   a

defendant  may  be  required to provide for the  support  of  any

persons for whose support the defendant is legally responsible.

          Robbins  does  not argue that he has no  obligation  to

support his family.  Nor does he argue that 40% of his net income

is  excessive.  Instead, Robbins argues that requiring him to pay

the  specified  percentage of his net income  is  not  reasonably

related   to   the   protection  of  the   public   or   to   his

rehabilitation.6

          However, Judge Wood imposed a probation condition  that

Robbins not have contact with his daughter, and a condition  that

he  have  limited contact with his wife, so the  family  will  be

divided  while Robbins is on probation.  And in conjunction  with

the  condition  that Robbins pay support, Judge Wood  recommended

that  Robbins be placed at a community residential center as soon

as  he  is eligible so that he can obtain employment to meet  his

support obligations.

          Robbins   promotes  a  limited  view  of  whether   the

challenged condition is reasonably related to his rehabilitation.

In  Good  v.  State,7 our supreme court stated that  one  of  the

factors that a sentencing court could weigh when considering  the

defendants  rehabilitation  was the concern  for  the  defendants

          financial support of his family.8

          On  the  record  in  Robbinss case,  Judge  Wood  could

reasonably  conclude  that  Robbinss  rehabilitation   would   be

fostered by imposing a probation condition that required  Robbins

to  contribute a portion of his income towards the support of his

family.    Accordingly,   we  affirm  the  challenged   probation

condition.

          

          Conclusion

          Robbinss sentence is AFFIRMED.

MANNHEIMER, Judge, concurring.


          I concur in the majority opinion, with one reservation.

It  is true that AS 12.55.100(a)(3) authorizes a sentencing court

to  order a probationer to make support payments to (or  for  the

benefit  of) any person whom the probationer is legally obligated

to  support.   But  this statute must be read in conformity  with

Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 (the rule that establishes guidelines  for

child  support awards) and other applicable law governing spousal

and  child  support.  A probationer must not be subjected  to  an

additional or extraordinary duty of support as punishment for the

probationers crime.



_______________________________
     1 AS 11.31.100(a) & AS 11.41.434(a).

     2 AS 11.41.434(a)(1).

       3   See  AS  11.31.100(d)(2),  AS  11.41.434(b),  and   AS
12.55.125(c)(1).

     4 AS 12.55.100(a)(2).

     5 AS 12.55.100(a)(3).

      6  See  Roman  v. State, 570 P.2d 1235, 1240 (Alaska  1977)
(conditions  of  probation  must be  reasonably  related  to  the
rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public).

     7 590 P.2d 420 (Alaska 1979).

     8 Id. at 424.