Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Mae Lu Good v Municipality of Anchorage (9/27/2019) ap-2655

Mae Lu Good v Municipality of Anchorage (9/27/2019) ap-2655

                                                                    NOTICE
  

            The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the  

            Pacific Reporter.  Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal  

            errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:  



                                            303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
  

                                                           Fax:  (907) 264-0878
  

                                                E-mail:  corrections @ akcourts.us
  



                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



MAE LU GOOD,  

                                                                                       Court of Appeals No. A-12904  

                                              Appellant,                            Trial Court No. 3AN-16-08889 CR  



                                   v.  

                                                                                                      O P I N I O N  

MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,  



                                              Appellee.                              No. 2655 - September 27, 2019  



                                                

                       Appeal   from   the   District   Court,   Third   Judicial   District,  

                       Anchorage, Douglas Kossler, Judge.  



                       Appearances:  Deborah Burlinski, Burlinski Law Office, LLC,  

                                                 

                       Anchorage,  for  the  Appellant.                         Sarah  E.  Stanley,  Assistant  

                                                                                

                       Municipal            Prosecutor,           and      Rebecca          A.      Windt        Pearson,  

                                                                                                   

                       Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for the Appellee.  



                       Before:   Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison,  

                                                               

                       Judges.  



                       Judge HARBISON.  



                       Under AS 28.01.010(a), a municipality may not enact an ordinance that is                                                      



inconsistent with the provisions of Title 28, the portion of the state code that sets out                                                         



Alaska's   motor  vehicle   laws.     In   1983,   the   legislature   enacted   a   carve-out   to   this  



provision, allowing municipalities to adopt an ordinance                                         providing for the impoundment       


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

or  forfeiture  of  a  motor  vehicle  when  a  defendant  commits  certain  offenses,  even  if  this  

impoundment  or  forfeiture  is  harsher  than  the  penalty  for  a  corresponding  state  offense.1  



                    Then,  in  2016, the  legislature enacted a  third  provision  of  law  relevant  to  



this   appeal  -   a  provision  under   Title   29,  which   is  the  portion   of  the   state   code  that  



                                    2  

                                                                                                                             

governs   municipalities.                Unlike  AS  28.01.010(a),  this  new  provision  -  AS  29- 



                                                                                                                                 

.25.070(g) -  is not  limited to  motor  vehicle  laws.   The new provision precludes  a  



                                                                                                                             

municipality from imposing a greater punishment for a violation of municipal law than  



                                                                                                      

the punishment imposed for a comparable state crime with similar elements.  



                                                                                                                                

                    The question we confront in this appeal is whether this new provision in  



                                                                                                                  

Title  29  impliedly  repealed  the  statutory  carve-out  in  Title  28  that  has  historically  



                                                                                                                        

permitted  municipalities  to  impose  harsher  impoundments  or  forfeitures  for  certain  



                                                                              

delineated offenses.  Because we conclude that the answer is no, we affirm the 30-day  



                                                                                                       

impoundment imposed in this case under the Anchorage Municipal Code.  



                                                                  

          Underlying facts  and arguments on appeal  



                                                                                                                              

                    Mae Lu Good pleaded no contest to operating a motor vehicle under the  



                                                                                                                       

influence  under  Anchorage  Municipal  Code  (AMC)  09.28.020(A).                                             The  penalty  



                                                                                                                   

provisions  for this  conviction  are  set  out  in AMC  09.28.020(C).   Under  subsection  



                                                                                                                              

(C)(5), if the  defendant has  an interest in the vehicle used  in the  commission of the  



                                                                                                                                

offense, but  has no prior  convictions  for operating under  the  influence  or refusal  to  



                                                                                                                               

submit to a breath test, the sentencing court is required to impound the vehicle for 30  



     1    Former AS 28.35.038 (repealed by SLA 2002, ch. 60,  55); AS 28.01.015(b) (enacted  



in the same session as the repeal of  AS 28.35.038 by  SLA 2002, ch. 60,   6); see McCormick  

v. Anchorage, 999 P.2d 155, 167-68 (interpreting former AS 28.35.038).  



     2    SLA 2016, ch. 36,  113.  



                                                              - 2 -                                                         2655
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                   3  

days.   Because Good had an interest in the vehicle, but no prior qualifying convictions,                                                                                                                                                                                         



the court ordered her vehicle impounded for 30 days.                                                                                                                             



                                                 Good's  plea   agreement   allowed   her   to   challenge   the   validity   of   the  



impoundment requirement. She filed a motion to vacate the impoundment, arguing that                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



the mandatory impoundment requirement was invalidated by AS 29.25.070(g), the new                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



Title 29 provision, which prohibits municipalities fromimposing                                                                                                                                                                            a"greater punishment"                



for a municipal crime than that imposed for a comparable state crime.                                                                                                                                                                                              



                                                 The district court denied Good's motion.                                                                                                                   Good now appeals the district                                                            



court's decision.   



                                                 On appeal, the parties agree that the municipal crime of operating under the                                                                                                                                                                                       



influence    is    comparable    to   the    state    crime    of    operating    under    the    influence,  



AS 28.35.030.                                          But the state statute does not contain an impoundment provision - that                                                                                                                                                                                    



is, AS 28.35.030 does not require a judge to impound the defendant's vehicle for a first-                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



time offense.                                     Although the state statute authorizes a judge to forfeit the vehicle used in                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 4  

the commission of the offense, forfeiture is not required.                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                 Good argues that because state law does not require vehicle impoundment  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

for  a  first-time  operating  under  the  influence  conviction,  the  mandatory  vehicle  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

impoundment provision of AMC 09.28.020(C)(5) is a "greater punishment" and is  



                                                                                                         

therefore invalidated by AS 29.25.070(g).  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                 In response, the Municipality argues that the carve-out in Title 28 for  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

municipal impoundments and forfeitures, AS 28.01.015, survived the enactment of  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

AS 29.25.070(g).  The Municipality contends that because AS 28.01.015 specifically  



            3            See AMC 09.28.020(C)(5)(a); see also AMC 09.28.020(E)(5) (defining "previously  



convicted").  If  the defendant has been previously  convicted, the court is required to forfeit  

the defendant's interest in the vehicle.  See AMC 09.28.020(C)(5)(b).  



            4            AS 28.35.030(b)(3).  



                                                                                                                                                       - 3 -                                                                                                                                                    2655
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

authorizes municipalities to adopt impoundment or forfeiture ordinances that are more  

                                                                                                                              



stringent than applicable provisions under state law, the impoundment in this case was  

                                                                                                                                



proper.  



           The statutory framework  relevant to this appeal  

                                                                          



                     Alaska   Statute  28.01.010(a)   prohibits  municipalities   from  enacting  

                                                                                                                        



ordinances that  are inconsistent with  the provisions  of  Title 28.   But AS  28.01.015  

                                                                                                                      



exempts impoundment and forfeitures from this uniformity requirement.  It provides:  

                                                                                                                      



                     (a)   Notwithstanding               other   provisions            in   this   title,      a  

                                                                                                              

                     municipality  may  adopt  an  ordinance  providing  for  the  

                                                                                                            

                     impoundment or forfeiture of a  

                                                                       



                               (1)   motor   vehicle,   watercraft,                  or    aircraft  

                                                                                          

                               involved in the commission of an offense under  

                                                                                               

                               AS 28.35.030, 28.35.032, or an ordinance with  

                                                                                                 

                               elements substantially similar to AS 28.35.030  

                                                                                        

                               or 28.35.032 . . .  

                                                          



                     (b)  An ordinance adopted under (a) of this section may  

                                                                                                     



                               . . . .  

                                      



                               (2) be more  stringent than or the  same as but  

                                                                                                  

                               may  not  be   less  stringent  than  applicable  

                                                                                      

                               provisions   under   this   title   or   regulations  

                                                                                    

                               adopted under this title.  

                                                             



                     Good does not dispute that, prior to the enactment of AS 29.25.070(g) in  

                                                                                                              



2016,        the     mandatory            impoundment              and      forfeiture         provision         set      out     in  

                                                                                                                                



AMC   09.28.020(C)(5)   was   clearly   authorized   by   the   carve-out   provision   of  

                                                                                                                                 



                                                               - 4 -                                                          2655
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                                                                            5  

AS   28.01.015   that   we   have   just   quoted.     But   she   argues   that   the   enactment   of  



AS 29.25.070(g) invalidated the carve-out.                                         



                                 At the time of Good's sentencing, AS 29.25.070(g) provided:                                                                        



                                 If a municipality prescribes a penalty for a violation of a                                                                                        

                                 municipal ordinance, including a violation under (a) of this                                                                                 

                                  section, and there is a comparable state offense under AS 11                                                                                   

                                 or AS 28 with elements that are similar                                                                    to  the municipal   

                                 ordinance,    the    municipality    may  not    impose    a   greater  

                                 punishment than that imposed for a violation of the state law.                                                                                         

                                 This   subsection  applies   to   home   rule   and   general   law  

                                 municipalities.[6]  



                                                                                                                                                                                              

By allowing municipalities to adopt ordinances imposing impoundments or forfeitures  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

that are "more stringent than" state impoundments and forfeitures, AS 28.01.015 is  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

arguably at odds with AS 29.25.070(g).  Accordingly, we must determine whether the  



                                                                                                                                                                        

enactment of AS 29.25.070(g) constituted an implied repeal of AS 28.01.015.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                 Because  this  appeal  presents  solely  a  legal  question  regarding  the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                            7  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

interpretation of controlling statutes, we review the trial court's decision de novo. 



        5        See McCormick v. Anchorage, 999 P.2d 155, 167-68 (Alaska App. 2000)  (interpreting  



AS 28.35.038, which was repealed and replaced without relevant changes by  AS 28.01.015,  

to authorize municipal  impoundment and forfeiture provisions that were inconsistent with  

the provisions of  Title 28).  



        6  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

                 In 2017, subsequent to Good's sentencing, the legislature amended this provision,  

                                                                                                                                                                    

changing the word "offenses" to "crimes."  SLA 2017, ch. 13,  24.  The legislative history  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

of this change indicates that it was a technical change clarifying that AS  29.25.070(g)'s  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

prohibition against municipal ordinances imposing "greater punishments" than those imposed  

                                                             

by state law applied only to "crimes," and not to minor offenses such as traffic infractions.  

The amendment therefore sheds no light on the issue presented in this appeal.  



        7        See, e.g., Madonna v. Tamarack Air, Ltd., 289 P.3d 875, 878 (Alaska 2013).  



                                                                                                      - 5 -                                                                                                  2655
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                  Why we conclude that the mandatory impoundment requirement of the
                                                                                                              

                Anchorage Municipal Code is not rendered invalid by AS 29.25.070(g)
                                                                                 



                                  1.  Law of implied repeal                     



                                  Statutes may be repealed by implication.                                                                      There are two categories of                                          



implied repeal:   



                                  (1)   where provisions in the two acts are in irreconcilable                                                        

                                  conflict, the later act to the extent of the conflict constitutes   

                                  an implied repeal of the earlier one; and (2) if the later act                                                                                  

                                  covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly                                                                           

                                  intended as a substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of                                                                                 

                                  the earlier act.                    [8]  



                                                                                                                                                             

On appeal, Good relies solely on the first category of implied repeal.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                         9  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                  In Alaska,thereis no automaticpresumption against implied repeal,                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                            as this  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                

type of presumption runs contrary to the "real probability . . . that the purpose of new  



                                                                                        10  

                                                                          

legislation is to change prior law." 



                                                                                                                                                   

                                  In Peter v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court stated:  



                                                                                                                                                                      

                                  [W]e  should  not  commence  with  a  presumption  against  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                  implied repeal. We shall look to the purpose indicated by the  

                                                                                                                                                               

                                  legislature in passage of an act in our effort to determine  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                  whether the new enactment is intended to repeal a prior one.  

                                                                                                                                                                       

                                  If enforcement of the prior statute is in irreconcilable conflict  

                                                                                                                                                                 

                                  with such purpose, it will be held to have been impliedly  

                                  repealed.[11]  



         8       Peter v. State, 531 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Alaska 1975).  



         9       Progressive Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 953 P.2d 510, 516 (Alaska 1998).  



         10      Peter, 531 P.2d at 1268.  



         11      Id.  



                                                                                                        - 6 -                                                                                                   2655
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

Accordingly,   we   look   to   the   legislative   intent   behind   each   of   the   state   statutes   to  



determine  whether  enforcement of AS  28.01.015  would  be  in  "irreconcilable  conflict"  



with  the  purpose  of  the  subsequently  enacted  statute,  AS  29.25.070(g).   



                    2.  Legislative  intent  of  AS  28.01.015  



                    In   enacting   AS   28.01.010,   the   legislature's   specific   goal was   statewide   

uniformity   of  traffic  laws   among  the  political   subdivisions  within  the   State.12  

                                                                                                                      Under  



                                                                                                                           

AS 28.01.010(a), "A municipality may not enact an ordinance that is inconsistent with  



                                                                                                    

the provisions of [Title 28] or the regulations adopted under [Title 28]."  



                                                                                                                            

                    But  since  1983,  Title  28  has  contained  an  explicit  exception  to  the  



                                                                                                                              

requirement that municipal ordinances may not be inconsistent with the provisions of  



             13  

         

Title 28.                                                                                                            

                (This exception was originally codified in AS 28.35.038 and is now codified  



                                                                                                                  

in  AS  28.01.015.)             Under  this  exception,  a  municipality  may  enact  an  ordinance  



                                                                                                                  

providing for the impoundment or forfeiture of a motor vehicle used in several delineated  



                                                                                                                     

offenses, including operating under the influence, even if this provision is more stringent  



                    

than its state counterpart.  



                                                                                                                       

                    In McCormick v. Anchorage , we explained (when interpreting the former  



                                                                                                                     

statute),  that  by  enacting  AS  28.35.038,  the  Alaska  Legislature  explicitly  granted  



                                                                                                                           

municipalities  the  power  under  certain  circumstances  to  enact  impoundment  and  



                                                                                                                  14  

                                                                                                              

forfeiture ordinances that are inconsistent with the other provisions of Title 28.                                        

                                                                                                                     In other  



                                                                                                             

words, the legislature intended AS 28.35.038 to be a specific carve-out for impoundment  



     12   See Simpson v. Anchorage, 635 P.2d 1197, 1203 (Alaska App. 1981).  



     13   See former AS 28.35.038 (enacted by SLA 1983, ch. 77,  23).  



     14   McCormick v. Anchorage , 999 P.2d 155, 167 (Alaska App. 2000).  



                                                             - 7 -                                                        2655
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

and forfeiture provisions, allowing municipalities to adopt these provisions for certain  



types  of  offenses  even  when  the  provisions  are  inconsistent  with  state  statutes.  



                    In  2002,   the   legislature   repealed   AS   28.35.038   and   replaced   it   with  



AS   28.01.015   -   expanding   the   situations   in   which   the   municipality   could   adopt   a  

broader   impoundment   or   forfeiture   ordinance.15  

                                                                            Under   the   new   statute,   municipal  



impoundment  and  forfeiture  ordinances  for  certain  offenses,  including  operating  under  



the  influence,  continue  to  be  a  permissible  carve-out t  o  the  uniformity requirement  of  



Title  28,  but  only  if  the  ordinance  is  "more  stringent  than  or  the  same  as"  corresponding  

state  law.16  



                                                                                                      

                    3. Legislative intent of AS 29.25.070(g) and Senate Bill 91  



                                           

                    Subsection (g) of AS 29.25.070 was added in 2016 as part of Senate Bill  



     17  

91.                                                                                                                      

         According to a sponsor statement by  Senator John Coghill, Senate Bill 91 was  



                                                                                                                          

intended to reduce recidivism, lower corrections costs caused by long sentences, and  



                                                                                                                  

reinvest the savings into alternative crime reduction schemes, such as pretrial practices  



                              18  

                                   

                   

and reentry services. 



                                                                                                                    

                    The opening paragraphs of Senator Coghill's Sponsor Statement read:  



                                                                                                 

                    Senate  Bill  91  implements  proven  practices  to  reduce  

                                                                                          

                   recidivism, keep Alaskans safe, hold offenders accountable,  

                                                                      

                    and control corrections spending.  



     15   SLA 2002, ch. 60,  6, 55.  



     16   AS 28.01.015(b).  



     17   SLA 2016, ch. 36,  113.  



     18   Sponsor Statement for Senate Bill 91, Senator John  Coghill, Version N (March 28,  



2016).  



                                                            - 8 -                                                       2655
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                        Increased   spending   on   prisons   has   not   brought   Alaskans  

                        greater public safety:  nearly two out of every three inmates                                  

                        who leave prison return to prison within three years.                                               The  

                        high        rate       of      recidivism             has       significantly              increased  

                        Department of Corrections operating costs to $324 million in                                             

                        FY   2016,   and   spurred   the   opening   of   the   Goose   Creek  

                        Correctional    Center,    costing    the    state    $240    million    in  

                        construction funds.                [19]  



                                                                                                                                

The sponsor statement then provides that the bill will (1) implement evidence-based  



                                                                                                                                          

pretrial practices, (2) focus prison beds on serious and violent offenders, (3) strengthen  



                                                                                                                                                      

probation and parole supervision, (4) improve opportunities for successful reentry, and  



                                                                                                                                                         20  

                                                                                                                                         

(5) reinvest a portion of the savings from these reforms into evidence-based practices. 



                                                                                                                                         

                        Senate Bill 91 was the product of recommendations issued by the Alaska  



                                                      21 

Criminal Justice Commission.                                                                                           

                                                           The Commission found, "based on prison population  



                                                                                                                                             

data for the preceding decade, that 'incarceration [was no] more effective at reducing  



                                                                                                                                               

recidivismthannon-custodial sanctions' -that, indeed, forlow-leveloffenders, sending  



                                                                                                           22  

                                                                                      

them to prison seemingly increased the rate of recidivism."                                                     



                                                                                                                                                      

                        Senator  Coghill's  sponsor  statement,  when  viewed  together  with  the  



                                                                                                                                                 

Commission's finding and the plain language of AS 29.25.070(g), indicates that Senate  



                                                                                                                                                              

Bill 91 was intended to reduce corrections spending and recidivism in part by limiting  



                                                                                                                                                    

incarceration  in  favor  of  non-custodial  sanctions  and  rehabilitation.  To  that  end,  



      19    Id.  



      20    Id.  



      21    See  Sponsor Statement for Senate Bill 91, Senator John Coghill, Version N  (February  



 10, 2016); Anchorage v. Beezley , 435 P.3d 978, 981 (Alaska App. 2018).  



      22    Beezley,  435  P.3d  at  981  (quoting  Alaska  Criminal  Justice   Reinvestment  Report  



(2015), pp. 8-9) (emphasis in Beezley).  



                                                                          - 9 -                                                                     2655
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

AS  29.25.070(g)  prohibited  municipalities  from  imposing  punishments  for  municipal  



offenses  that  exceed  the  punishments  authorized  for  comparable  state  offenses.   



                    4.    Whether   there   is   an  irreconcilable   conflict   between  

                   AS  28.01.015  and  AS  29.25.070(g)  



                    In    assessing    whether    there    is    an    irreconcilable    conflict    between  

AS  28.01.015  and  AS  29.25.070(g),  legislative  intent  is  key.23  

                                                                                                         

                                                                                               If AS 28.01.015 is in  



                                                                                                                 

irreconcilable conflict with the purpose of AS 29.25.070(g), then it has been impliedly  



              24  

repealed.                                                                                                                 

                  If, on the other hand, AS 28.01.015  still has  a rational purpose  after the  



                                             25                                                   26  

                           

enactment of AS 29.25.070(g),                                                             

                                                both statutes continue to be valid. 



                                                                                                               

                    To  make  this  determination,  we  assess  the  totality  of  the  legislative  



                                                                            27  

                                                               

framework within which these statutes are included.                                                                        

                                                                               We interpret the two statutes "in  



                                                                                                                     

context with other pertinent provisions rather than in isolation, and with a view toward  



                                                                                      28  

                                                                          

reconciling conflict and producing 'a harmonious whole.'"                                 



                                                                                                               

                   As  we  discussed  above,  for  decades  the  legislature  has  precluded  



                                                                                                                      

municipalities  from enacting  ordinances that  are  inconsistent with  the  state's motor  



     23   See Progressive Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 953 P.2d 510, 516 (Alaska 1998).  



     24   See id.  



     25   See id. at 518.  



     26   See Peter v. State, 531 P.2d 1263, 1268 (Alaska 1975).  



     27   See  Lampley  v.  Anchorage,  159  P.3d  515,  524  (Alaska  App.  2007)  (considering  



whether municipal ordinance was fatally inconsistent with state statute).  



     28   Progressive Ins. Co., 953 P.2d at 516 (quoting City of Anchorage v. Scavenius, 539  



P.2d 1169, 1174 (Alaska 1975)).  



                                                           -  10 -                                                      2655
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                               29  

vehicle laws under Title 28.                        At the same time, since 1983, the legislature has expressly                        

carved out impoundments and forfeitures from this general uniformity requirement.                                                                 30  



                                                                                                                                                      

                       In 2016, the legislature expanded the uniformity requirement by adding a  



                                                                                                                                             

provision to Title 29 that applies to all crimes under both Title 11 and Title 28.  Under  



                                                                                                                                            

this  new  provision,  uniformity  is  no  longer  limited  to  motor  vehicle  laws;  rather,  



                                                                                                                               

municipalities are precluded from imposing a "greater punishment" for any municipal  



                                                                                                                        31  

                                                                                                                            

violation than the punishment imposed for a comparable state crime. 



                                                                                                                                                    

                       But there is no reason to think that, by adding a uniformity provision to  



                                                                                                                                                

Title  29  and  expanding  it  to  include  all  offenses  under  Title  11  and  Title  28  (but  



                                                                                                                                                 

otherwise  leaving  the  more  specific  Title  28  uniformity  provision  in  place),  the  



                                                                                                                              

legislature intended to repeal the long-standing carve-out in Title 28 for impoundments  



                                                                                                                                                    

and forfeitures.  Indeed, we have not identified anything in the legislative history of  



                                                                                                                                                 

Senate Bill 91 or AS 29.25.070(g) to suggest that the legislature had impoundments and  



                                                                                         

forfeitures in mind when it enacted this provision.  



                                                                                                                                          

                       The Alaska Supreme Court confronted an analogous situation in Hafling  



                                                                   32  

                                                      

v. Inlandboatmen's Union of Pacific .                                                                                                             

                                                                        In Hafling, the court considered whether the  



                                                                                                                     

Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), which gave all public employees the right  



to organize and bargain collectively with their public employers, applied to state ferry  



                             33  

                                                                                                                                            

                                   This question in turn hinged on whether the enactment of PERA  

system workers. 



      29    See AS 28.01.010(a).  



      30    AS 28.01.015; former AS 28.35.038.  



      31    AS 29.25.070(g).  



      32    Hafling v. Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, 585 P.2d 870 (Alaska 1978).  



      33    Id. at 871.  



                                                                      - 11 -                                                                   2655
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

impliedly   repealed   another   statute,  enacted   nine   years   earlier,   that   had   specifically  



authorized the commissioner of public works to engage in collective bargaining with                                                   



                                     34  

state   ferry   employees.                                                                                                   

                                           The supreme  court  declined  to  find  that  PERA  impliedly  



                                                                                                                           

repealed the earlier statue but instead construed the statutes in pari materia , concluding  



                                                                                                                             

that PERA did not undercut the earlier statute but instead provided additional guidelines  



                                                                   35  

                                                 

and procedures for collective bargaining. 



                                                                                                                                  

                      We similarly conclude that, while AS 29.25.070(g) was intended to expand  



                                                                                                                                  

sentencing uniformity throughout the state, it did not undercut the more specific statute  



                                                                                                                                      

governing  impoundments  and  forfeitures  that  had  existed  as  a  carve-out  to  this  



                         

uniformity for decades.  



                                                                                                                                

                      Thisconclusion is consistentwiththeruleofstatutoryconstructionfavoring  



                                                                                                                                 

specific provisions over more general provisions. As we have previously stated, "where  



                                                                                                                                     

one statute deals with a subject in general terms and another deals with a part of the same  



                                                                                                                                       

subject in more detail, the two should be harmonized if possible, but if there is any  



                                                                            36  

                                                                                                                         

conflict, the more specific statute will prevail."                              Additionally, continued enforcement  



                                                                                                                                        

of the impoundment and forfeiture carve-out in AS 28.01.015 is not inconsistent with the  



                                                                                                                                      

stated purpose of Senate Bill 91 - "to reduce recidivism, keep the public safe, hold  



                                                                               

offenders accountable, and control spending on corrections."  



                                                                                                                                

                      For  these reasons,  we conclude that  there is no  irreconcilable conflict  



                                                                                                                                  

between  the  two  statutes,  and  therefore  AS  29.25.070(g)  did  not  impliedly  repeal  



     34    Id. at 876.  



     35    Id.  



     36    Lamkin v. State ,  244 P.3d 540, 541 (Alaska App. 2010) (quoting Waiste v. State, 808  



P.2d 286, 289 (Alaska App. 1991)); see also State of Alaska, Dep't of Highways v. Green,  

586 P.2d 595, 602 (Alaska 1978) (same).  



                                                                 - 12 -                                                              2655
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

AS 28.01.015. Accordingly, the district court did not err in ordering that Good's vehicle  

                                                                                                                    



be impounded for 30 days.  

                                



          Conclusion  



                   The judgment  of the district court is AFFIRMED.  

                                                                         



                                                          -  13 -                                                      2655
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC