Chrisman v. State

In Chrisman v. State, 789 P.2d 370 (Alaska App. 1990) the Court stated: "When a history of probation violations establishes a person's poor prospects for rehabilitation, that fact may be deemed an extraordinary circumstance justifying the imposition of a sentence in excess of the Austin limits.... The relevant question in such cases is whether the totality of the circumstances upon revocation of probation would have justified a sentence in excess of the Austin limits (Austin v. State, 627 P.2d 657 (Alaska App. 1981)) if known when the original sentence was imposed. Before finding that an offender's probation violations justify a total sentence exceeding the applicable presumptive term for a second felony offender, the sentencing court must conclude that the offender's poor conduct on probation, when viewed in conjunction with all of the originally available sentencing information, renders the case even more serious -- and therefore deserving of even greater punishment -- than the case of a typical second felony offender committing a typical offense of the same class." (Id. at 371.)