Legal Opinion

Franzen v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1978No. 3160PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BURKE, Justice.

This is a sentence appeal. 1 Appellant’s sole contention is that the superior court erred in considering certain information appearing in his presentence report. 2 He makes no direct claim that the sentence was excessive.

That portion of the presentence report complained of consists of the following statements:

It is said that [appellant] was associating with a former Eagle River [prison] inmate and that his circle of friends consisted of known drug users and dealers. Norman does not deny this implication, and he will not indicate who his friends were. 3

Prior to sentencing…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. State v. ChaneyAlaska Supreme Court · 1970
  3. People v. Chi Ko WongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Evans v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Nukapigak v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1977

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Schmid v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Cockerham v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Campbell v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Manderson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1983
  5. Tritt v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1981

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API