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.
