Marunich v. State
In Marunich v. State, 151 P.3d 510 (Alaska App. 2006), the sentencing court included several conditions of probation in the written judgment that the court had not mentioned at the defendant's sentencing hearing.
The Court held that the defendant "was entitled to advance notice of these requirements and an opportunity to argue that, under the circumstances of his case, one or more of these requirements are unreasonable or infringe his rights."
Marunich held that the superior court could, after a hearing, impose standard conditions of probation which were necessary for a probation officer to supervise and control the conduct of a probationer.