from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Juneau,
Philip M. Pallenberg, Judge. Trial Court No. 1KE-93-730 CR
Timothy Ayer (opening and reply brief) and Callie Patton Kim
(supplemental brief and oral argument), Assistant Public
Defenders, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage,
for the Appellant.
Terisia K. Chleborad, Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards and Jahna
Lindemuth, Attorneys General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock,
Superior Court Judge. [*]
Allen Charles Jr. is a convicted sex offender. In November
2014, the superior court revoked Charles's probation
based on Charles's failure to attend a polygraph
appointment with his probation officer. The court imposed 9
months to serve for this violation. This was the State's
second petition to revoke Charles's
probation.The first petition to revoke Charles's
probation (based on excessive use of alcohol) had been
resolved less than a month before the second petition was
appeal, Charles argues that the superior court erred when it
revoked his probation based on a single missed appointment.
According to Charles, a defendant's probation can only be
revoked for a "willful" violation of the terms of
his probation. Charles contends that he did not knowingly or
purposely miss his appointment and that the court therefore
had no authority to revoke his probation.
reasons explained here, we conclude that the existence of
"good cause" to revoke a defendant's probation
as required by AS 12.55.110(a) does not necessarily depend on
the willfulness of the violation. Instead, it depends on the
nature of the probation condition, the applicable mental
state for the violation, and the significance of the
violation with regard to the defendant's amenability to
continued probation supervision. In the current case, the
superior court found that (1) Charles had notice of the
polygraph appointment and his obligation to attend the
appointment; (2) Charles failed to attend the polygraph
appointment for reasons that were within his control; (3) the
missed polygraph appointment and Charles's failure to
keep track of this appointment were part of a larger pattern
of Charles's noncompliance with and resistance to the
rehabilitative aspects of probation; and (4) Charles's
failure to commit to his responsibilities as a sex offender
on probation and his failure to actively engage in the
rehabilitative process made him dangerous to the community.
These findings are well supported by the record and
sufficient to constitute "good cause" to revoke
Charles's probation in this case. Accordingly, we find no
error in the court's decision to revoke Charles's
facts and prior proceedings
1983, Charles was convicted of first-degree burglary and
second-degree sexual assault, and sentenced to 6 years to
serve. Charles's probation in that case was later revoked
for selling cocaine to an undercover police agent, and he
ultimately served the remainder of his sentence in prison.
1994, Charles was convicted of first-degree sexual assault,
second-degree sexual assault, and second-degree sexual abuse
of a minor for sexually assaulting a
fourteen-year-old. As a second felony offender, Charles
received a composite sentence of 25 years with 5 years
suspended (20 years to serve) for these new crimes.
to his release on mandatory parole, Charles's parole was
anticipatorily revoked for failure to participate in and
complete court-ordered sex offender treatment while in
prison. Following his release, Charles's parole was
revoked more than once based on his failure to comply with
the terms of his mandatory parole. Charles finally completed
his mandatory parole in March 2014, but his supervision on
continued to struggle with the obligations of his probation.
Charles was frequently late to his appointments with his
probation officer, and he would often arrive with incomplete
forms or accounts of his daily activities that were not
sufficiently detailed. Charles also tested positive for drug
August 2014, the State filed its first petition to revoke
Charles's probation, alleging excessive use of alcohol
based on a police contact in which Charles was suspected of
driving under the influence. As a result of this petition to
revoke, Charles's probation conditions were modified to
prohibit any use of alcohol.
little more than a month later, on September 26, 2014, the
State filed a second petition to revoke Charles's
probation after Charles missed a scheduled polygraph
examination. In this petition, the probation officer alleged
that Charles posed a "high risk" for assaulting or
abusing new victims.
adjudication hearing that followed, Charles acknowledged that
he had received notice of the polygraph examination from his
probation officer, who had notified him by phone and who had
also written down the date and time of the appointment on a
business card and given it to Charles.
to Charles, he put the polygraph appointment card into his
wallet along with an appointment card for his sex offender
treatment, which was ...