Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Tanner v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska

Decided December 14, 2018No. 2628 A-12617Published

1Concurrence

Judge ALLARD, concurring.

I agree with the majority decision that Tanner's electronic monitoring program was insufficiently restrictive to qualify for credit under AS 12.55.027(d). I write separately only to make clear that, in my view, our decision is limited to the facts presented in this case and that a defendant whose monitoring program includes very limited and highly circumscribed passes specifically to obtain groceries (or other essential items of daily living such as medication) should not necessarily suffer the same disqualification.

In its briefing, the State concedes that "[t]he…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1993
  2. Y.J. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2006
  3. Brown v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2017
  4. Miller v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API