Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. State v. Fyfe (3/25/2016) sp-7094

State v. Fyfe (3/25/2016) sp-7094

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                         

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                           

           corrections@akcourts.us.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                       



STATE  OF  ALASKA,                                                   )  

                                                                     )      Supreme  Court  No.  S-15687  

                                Petitioner,                             

                                                                     )     Court  of  Appeals  No.  A-11058   

                                                                     )  

                                                                                                                                      

           v.                                                        )      Superior Court No. 3PA-10-03464 CR  

                                                                     )  

                      

LINDEN K. FYFE,                                                                                 

                                                                     )     O P I N I O N  

                                                                     )  

                                Respondent.                                                                     

                                                                     )     No. 7094 - March 25, 2016  

                                                                     )  



                                                       

                                                                                                                    

                      Petition for Hearing from the Court of Appeals of the State of  

                                                                                                                    

                      Alaska, on Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of  

                                                                                                           

                      Alaska,  Third  Judicial  District,  Palmer,  David  L.  Zwink,  

                      Judge.  



                                                                                                         

                      Appearances:  Mary A. Gilson, Assistant Attorney General,  

                                                                                                        

                      Anchorage,  and  Craig  W.  Richards,  Attorney  General,  

                                                                                                            

                      Juneau,  for  Petitioner.                  Kelly  Taylor,  Assistant  Public  

                                                                                                     

                      Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage,  

                                                 

                      for Respondent.  



                                                                                                           

                      Before:  Stowers, Chief Justice, Fabe, Maassen, and Bolger,  

                                                                          

                      Justices.  [Winfree, Justice, not participating.]  



                                            

                      MAASSEN, Justice.  



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                               

                      Linden Fyfe was stopped by police while driving on a stretch of highway  



                                                                                                                                   

designated as a traffic safety corridor.  He was charged and convicted of driving under  


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

the influence of alcohol, a violation of AS 28.35.030.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          At sentencing the trial court                                                                                                 



imposed double                                                                   the statutory minimumfine, relying on another statute, AS 28.90.030(a),                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



that doubles "the fine, or maximum fine," for any violation of a provision of Title 28 in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



a traffic safety corridor.                                                                                                   The court of appeals reversed.                                                                                                                                       It concluded that despite the                                                                                                          



 statute's plain                                                           language,   the legislature intended fines to                                                                                                                                                                                        be doubled                                                      only   for   non- 



criminal traffic offenses.                                                                                                       



                                                                    We disagree with the court of appeals' rationale, though not its mandate.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



We conclude that the contrary legislative history is not convincing enough to overcome                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



the plain language of AS 28.90.030(a), and the statute therefore applies to both criminal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



and non-criminal traffic offenses under Title 28. But we also hold that the plain language                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



of the statute precludes its application to                                                                                                                                                                       minimum  fines such as the one at issue here.                                                                                                                                                                                                



On that ground we affirmthe court of appeals' decision to vacate Fyfe's fine and remand                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



for imposition of the statutory minimum fine.                                                                                                                                                                   



II.                               FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS                                                      



                                                                    A state trooper stopped Linden Fyfe on the Parks Highway after observing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



that Fyfe's vehicle was missing a muffler and the license plate was obscured.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The  



trooper later testified that Fyfe was shaking, slurred his words, and smelled of alcohol.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



After a Datamaster breathalyzer test showed that Fyfe's blood alcohol level was 0.117%,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1  

he was charged with felony driving under the influence (DUI).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 At trial he raised the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

defense of necessity, testifying that he had to drive because his girlfriend's daughter,  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

whom he had helped raise from infancy, had been admitted to the hospital after an  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

apparent  seizure.  The jury rejected the defense and convicted him.  



                                   1                                A  blood  alcohol  level  of  0.08%  or  above  is  one  element  of  the  crime  of  



driving  under  the  influence.   AS  28.35.030(a)(2).   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -2-                                                                                                                                                                                                                               7094  


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

                                             At sentencing the State relied on AS 28.90.030(a), which doubles "the fine,                                                                                                                                                              



or maximum fine" for any violation of "a provision of this title" that occurs "within a                                                                                                                                                                                                         



highway work zone or traffic safety corridor."                                                                                                                          It was the State's position that the                                                                            



mandatory minimum fine for driving under the influence had to be doubled - from                                                                                                                                                                                                    



$10,000 to $20,000 - based on the uncontested fact that Fyfe's offense occurred on a                                                                                                                                                                                                            



stretch of highway designated as a traffic safety corridor.                                                                                                                                      The superior court sentenced                                      



Fyfe to 20 months in prison with 16 months suspended and imposed a $20,000 fine; it                                                                                                         



remarked, however, that it would have imposed a fine of half that amount if not for the                                                                                                                                                                                                  



statutory mandate.   



                                             Fyfe appealed his conviction to the court of appeals. He argued in part that                                                                                                                                                               



the $20,000 fine was illegal because the legislature did not intend to double the fine for                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2  

felony driving under the influence in a traffic safety corridor.                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The court of appeals  



                                                                                                            3  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

agreed  and  vacated  the  fine.                                                                                          It  noted  that  although  the   plain   language  of  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

AS 28.90.030(a) would seem to double fines for all offenses found in Title 28, Alaska's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  4  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

canons ofstatutory construction requirethatcourtsalsoconsider legislativehistory.                                                                                                                                                                                                      The  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

court of appeals concluded that this history reveals a legislative intent to limit the fine- 



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

doubling provision to non-criminal trafficoffenses, thus excluding criminaloffenses like  



                                                                 5  

                                               

Fyfe's felony DUI. 



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                             The State filed a petition for hearing, asking us to review the court of  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

appeals' interpretation of AS 28.90.030(a).   We granted review.  



                       2                     Fyfe  v.  State,  334  P.3d   183,   184  (Alaska  App.  2014).  



                       3                     Id.  at   185-90.  



                       4                     Id.  at   185.  



                       5                     Id.  at   185-87.  



                                                                                                                                             -3-                                                                                                                                   7094
  


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

III.        STANDARD OF REVIEW
              



                        "The interpretation of a statute . . . is a question of law to which we apply                                         



                                                 6  

our independent judgment."                                                                                                                     

                                                     "We do not mechanically apply the plain meaning rule,  



                                                                                         

using instead a sliding scale approach to statutory interpretation, in which 'the plainer  



                                                                                                                                     

the statutory  language is,  the more convincing  the evidence  of  contrary  legislative  



                                                        7 

                                                                                                                                          

purpose  or  intent  must  be.'  "                           "[W]e  interpret  the  statute  according  to  reason,  



practicality, and common sense, considering the meaning of the statute's language, its  



                                                               8  

                                                                                                                            

legislative history, and its purpose."                             No one factor in this analysis is dispositive, but  



                 

"[w]here a statute's meaning appears clear and unambiguous, . . . the party asserting a  



                                                                                                                                        

different meaning bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating contrary  



                                9  

                                                                                                                                           

legislative intent."                If the party does not satisfy this burden, then "legislative history  



                                                                                                                            10  

                                                                                                          

[that] is somewhat contrary . . . does not overcome the plain meaning." 



            6          Alaska   Judicial   Council   v.   Kruse ,   331   P.3d   375,   379   (Alaska   2014)  



(alteration in original) (quoting                       West v. State, Bd. of Game                    , 248 P.3d 689, 694 (Alaska           

2010)).  



            7          Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage , 333 P.3d 5, 11 (Alaska 2014)  

                                                                                                                                             

(quoting McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 299 P.3d 715, 721 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                         

2013)).  



            8          State, Div. of Workers' Comp. v. Titan Enters., LLC, 338 P.3d 316, 320  

                                                                                                                                                 

(Alaska 2014).  

                



            9           Univ. of Alaska v. Geistauts, 666 P.2d 424, 428 n.5 (Alaska 1983); see also  

                                                                                                                                                

State v. Alex, 646 P.2d 203, 208 n.4 (Alaska 1982) ("[T]he plainer the language, the  

                                                                                                                               

more convincing contrary legislative history must be." (quoting  United States v. U.S.  

                                                                                                                                                

Steel Corp., 482 F.2d 439, 444 (7th Cir. 1973))).  

                                                                        



            10         Oels v. Anchorage Police Dep't Emps. Ass'n, 279 P.3d 589, 597 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                          

2012).  



                                                                         -4-                                                                  7094
  


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

IV.	       DISCUSSION  



           A.	        The  Plain  Language  Of  AS  28.90.030(a)  Is  Not  Overcome  By  Its  

                                                                                                                                          

                      Legislative History.  

                                           



                      The trial court applied AS 28.90.030(a) to double the minimum sentence  

                                                                                                                



for Fyfe's offense.  The statute provides:  

                                                     



                      Whenever  a  person  violates  a  provision  of  this  title  or  a  

                                                                                                                       

                      regulation adopted under the authority of this title within a  

                                                                                                                       

                      highway workzoneortrafficsafety corridor, notwithstanding  

                                                                                               

                      the amount of the fine or the maximum fine set under this  

                                                                                                                   

                      title,  the  fine,  or  maximum  fine,  is  double  the  amount  

                                                                                                            

                      provided in this title.  

                                                  

"[T]his title" - Title 28 - includes non-criminal traffic infractions;11 it also includes  

                                                                                                                          



provisions that impose criminal liability, both misdemeanors and felonies, such as the  

                                                                                                                                          

DUI statute under which Fyfe was convicted.12                                     As applied to all these offenses, the  

                                                                                                                                          



language of AS 28.90.030(a) is clear on its face: it applies "[w]henever a person violates  

                                                                                                                                   



a  provision  of  this  title"  - regardless  of  whether  the  violation  is  an  infraction,  a  

                                                                                                                          



misdemeanor, or a felony.  

                                              

                      The court of appeals agreed with this plain-language interpretation.13  

                                                                                                                                         But  



                                                                                                                                            

it went on to conclude that the legislature did not intend the fine-doubling provision of  



           11         See, e.g.     , AS 28.35.140 (classifying unlawful obstruction of traffic as an                                      



infraction).  



           12         See,  e.g.,  AS  28.90.010(a)  (imposing  misdemeanor  liability  for  any  

                                                                                                                                        

violation that is not declared a felony or infraction); AS 28.35.030(n) (imposing felony  

                                                                                                                                     

liability for a third driving under the influence conviction within ten years).  

                                                                                                                  



           13         Fyfe v. State, 334 P.3d 183, 185 (Alaska App. 2014) ("This provision, on  

                                                                                                                                           

its face, would seem to mandate a double fine for any driving under the influence offense  

                                                                                                                                    

committed in a traffic safety corridor because the offense of driving under the influence  

                                                                                                                                

is a provision of Title 28.").  

                                                



                                                                     -5-	                                                             7094
  


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

AS 28.90.030(a) to extend to felony driving under the influence because the statute's                                                      



                                                                                    14  

legislative history overcomes its plain language.                                                                                                

                                                                                        We disagree. Although there is some  



                                                                                                                                                     

legislative history on each side of the issue, we conclude that the history contrary to the  



                                                                                                                 

statute's plain language is not convincing enough to overcome it.  



                                                                                                                                         

                        1.	         The        1998        legislative            history          does        not       require           limiting  

                                                                                                               

                                   AS 28.90.030(a) to non-criminal traffic offenses.  



                                                                                                                                       

                        The court of appeals' analysis rests on the conclusion that the legislature  



                                                                                                                           15  

                                                                                                            

intended AS 28.90.030 to apply only to non-criminal traffic offenses.                                                                                  

                                                                                                                               As the court of  



                                                                                                                                              

appeals noted, AS 28.90.030 has its origins in former AS 28.40.070, a 1999 statute  



                                                                                                                                             16  

                                                                                                                                                  

imposing double fines for "offenses committed within highway work zones."                                                                          The  



                                                                                                                                                      

legislation creating the statute, first introduced in 1997 as House Bill 87, provided in  



                

relevant part:  



                                                                                                                     

                        Whenever a person violates a provision of this title relating  

                                                                                                                               

                        to speeding, or a regulation adopted under the authority of  

                                                                                                                    

                        this  title  relating  to  speeding,  or  is  convicted  of  reckless  

                                                                                                                       

                        driving  under  AS  28.35.040  or  negligent  driving  under  

                                                                                                      

                        AS 28.35.045 within a highway work zone, notwithstanding  

                                                                                                                            

                        the amount of the fine or the maximum fine set under this  

                                                                                                                    

                        title,  the  fine,  or  maximum  fine,  is  double  the  amount  



            14	        Id.  at   189.  



            15	        Id.  at   187.  



            16          Former  AS  28.40.070  (1999).   That  statute  provided:  



                        Whenever   a   person   violates   a   provision   of   this   title   or   a  

                        regulation  adopted  under  the  authority  of  this  title  within  a  

                        highway  work  zone,  notwithstanding  the  amount  of  the  fine  

                        or  the   maximum   fine   set   under   this   title,   the   fine,   or  

                        maximum  fine,  is  double  the  amount  provided  in  this  title.  



                                                                          -6-	                                                                   7094
  


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

                    provided in this title.         [17]  



                                                                                                                                

This original bill was thus limited  in  scope,  doubling fines for  only three Title 28  



                                                                                                                                      

violations in highway work zones:  speeding, reckless driving, and negligent driving.  



                                                                                  18  

                                                                                                          

                    But House Bill 87 did not become law.                              Senate Bill 304 was enacted  



                                                                                                                              

instead as former AS 28.40.070, containing much the same language as the current law,  



                          19  

                                                                                                                               

AS 28.90.030(a).              Senate Bill 304 required double fines more broadly than House Bill  



                                                                                                                     

87 had - i.e., "[w]henever a person violates a provision of [Title 28] or a regulation  



                                                                                                   20  

                                                                                 

under the authority of [Title 28] within a highway work zone."                                                                   

                                                                                                        This expansion of  



                                                                                                      

scope ostensibly applied the double fine requirement to all traffic violations addressed  



                                                                                                                           

by Title 28, regardless of whether they were criminal or non-criminal offenses.  



                                                                                                                        

                    The court of appeals noted, however, that some legislative history militates  



                                                                                                              

against this plain-language reading.   The  only testimony the Senate Transportation  



                                                                                                                       

Committee heard about then-existing fines during hearings on Senate Bill 304 involved  



                                                                                       21  

                                                                                                                         

the maximum fine for a traffic infraction, which was $300;                                the court of appeals inferred  



                                                                                                                         

from  this  that  the  legislature  anticipated  that  fines  doubled  under  the  law  "would  



          17        House  Bill  (H.B.)  87,  20th  Leg.,   1st  Sess.  (1997)  (emphases  added).  



          18        See   1998  House  Journal  2603.  



          19        Committee Substitute  for  Senate  Bill (C.S.S.B.)  304,  20th  Leg.,  2d  Sess.  



(1998);   1998  Senate  Journal  4273.  



          20        C.S.S.B.  304  (RLS).  



          21        Minutes,  Sen. Transp. Comm. Hearing on Senate Bill  (S.B.)  304, 20th Leg.,  



2d  Sess.  Tape  98-4  Side  B  (Feb.  24,   1998)  (testimony of  Capt.  Ted  Bachman,  Alaska  

State  Troopers).  



                                                                -7-                                                         7094
  


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

                                                         22  

generally   not   exceed   $600."                               But  this  limitation   is   not   reflected   in   the   statutory  



language.   The court of appeals also quoted Senator Dave Donley, the bill's sponsor,                                                                  



advising the Senate Transportation Committee "that the legislation 'does not deal with                                                                         



                                                                              23  

criminal law, only traffic violations.' "                                                                                                             

                                                                                     This correctly characterizes the  senator's  



                                                                                                 24  

                                                                                                                                                         

statement  as  it  appears  in  the  hearing  minutes,                                                 but  the  audio  recording  reveals  



                                        25  

                                                                                                                                            

something  different.                           Senator  Donley  was  not  describing  the  bill's  fine-doubling  



                                                                                                                                                                    

provision, but rather a separate section of the bill that proposed adding a new section to  



                                                                                                                                                        

AS 28.35 that would make it a traffic infraction to drive in the left lane of a divided  



                                                                                                                                                        

highway; his remarks made no distinction between criminal and non-criminal offenses  



                                                                                       26  

                                                                                             

in the context of the fine-doubling provision. 



                                                                                                                                                   

                          The court of appeals also considered the 1998 legislature's concurrent  



                                                                                                                                                        

amendment to AS 28.05.151 - another part of Senate Bill 304 - directing the supreme  



                                                                                                                                                                  

court and municipalities with bail and fine schedules to provide new schedules for  



             22           Fyfe v. State           , 334 P.3d 183, 186 (Alaska App. 2014).                            



             23           Id.  (quoting Minutes, Sen. Transp. Comm. Hearing on S.B. 304, 20th Leg.,                                                           



2d Sess. (Feb. 24, 1998) (statement of Senator Dave Donley)).  

                                                                                                       



             24           Minutes, Sen. Transp. Comm. Hearing on S.B. 304, 20th Leg., 2d Sess.  

                                                                                                                                                              

(Feb. 24, 1998) (statement of Senator Dave Donley) ("[Donley] noted S.B. 304 does not  

                                                                                                                                                                  

deal with criminal law, only with traffic violations.").  

                                                                                                          



             25           Statement  of  Senator  Dave  Donley  at  00:03:08-00:05:06,  Hearing  on  

                                                                                                                                                                  

S.B. 304 Before the Sen. Transp. Comm., 20th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 24, 1998).  

                                                                                                                                           



             26           Statement  of  Senator  Dave  Donley  at  00:04:55-00:05:06,  Hearing  on  

                                                                                                                                                                  

S.B. 304 Before the Sen. Transp. Comm., 20th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 24, 1998) ("[W]ith  

                                                                                                                                                       

those exceptions, you should try to stay to the right and out of that far lane. But it's only  

                                                                                                                                                               

- if you do it, it's just a ticket, it's just an infraction.  We're not dealing with criminal  

                                                                                                                                                        

law here, Mr. Chairman, we're just dealing with traffic violations."); see S.B. 304  3,  

                                                                                                                                                                    

20th Leg., 2nd Sess. (1998) (as introduced on Feb. 16, 1998).  

                                                                                                           



                                                                                 -8-                                                                          7094
  


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

violations in highway work zones that would "double the amount of the bail or fine for                                                          



                                                                                                              27  

the offense if it had not been committed in a highway work zone."                                                                        

                                                                                                                  The court of appeals  



                                                                                                                                                

read this amendment and AS 28.90.030 together to conclude that "it seems likely that the  



                                                                                                                                      

legislature  understood  the  double-fine  requirement  to  apply  .  .  .  only  to  offenses  



                                                                                                                                                  

amenable to disposition without court appearance[,] and not to fines imposed as part of  



                                                           28  

                                            

a sentence for a criminal offense." 



                                                                                                                                           

                       We do not read the amendment to AS 28.05.151 in the same way.  While  



                                                                                                                                      

it does show the legislature's intent to double the fines for non-criminal traffic offenses,  



                                                                                                                                                  

there is no evidence it was intended to define the entire reach of AS 28.90.030(a).  It  



                                                                                                                                          

directs municipalities and the supreme court to double fines that are set by those bodies  



                                                                                                                                              

rather than by the legislature.   A corresponding directive for criminal offenses was  



                                                                                                                                            

unnecessary because sentences in such cases are codified by the legislature itself. Thus,  



                                                                                                                                                 

although the amendment to AS 28.05.151 certainly furthered the overall purpose of  



                                                                                                                                          

AS 28.90.030, we do not read it as limiting the types of violations made subject to double  



fines.  



                                                                                                                                   

                       We conclude that while there are some aspects of the 1998 legislative  



                                                                                                                                                   

history contrary to the plain meaning of AS 28.90.030, evidence of a contrary intent is  



                                                                                                                                                

not convincing enough to overcome the unambiguously comprehensive language the  



                                   

legislature chose to adopt.  



                                                                       

                       2.	        The legislature did not narrow the scope of AS 28.90.030(a) in  

                                  2006.  



                                                                                                          

                       The legislature amended AS 28.40.070 in 2006 to extend the double fine  



           27          Fyfe,  334  P.3d  at   186  (quoting  ch.  64,     1,  SLA   1998).  



           28          Id.  at   186-87.  



                                                                        -9-                                                                      7094  


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

                                                                                                                         29  

provision to traffic safety corridors as well as highway work zones.                                                          The court of       



appeals   noted   that   the   provisions   of   the   "original   act   .   .   .   repeated   in   [the   2006]  



amendment   are   considered  as   a   continuation   of   the   original   act,"   and   it   therefore  



                                                                                                                                     30  

extended its analysis of legislative history to that surrounding the amendment.                                                                 

                                                                                                                                         As the  



                                                                                                                                             

court of appeals also observed, the governor's transmittal letter accompanying the 2006  



                                                                                                                                     

legislation indicated that the only change intended to the existing law was its extension  



                                            31  

                                                                                                                                              

to traffic safety corridors,                    and there is no indication that the legislature meant to alter  



                                                                                                        32  

                                                                                                                                               

the meaning or reach of the original statute in any other way.                                               We agree with that part  



                                                                                                                                               

of the court of appeals' analysis, but we reach a different conclusion because of our  



                                                        

different reading of the original statute.  



                                                                                                                                  

                       Reviewing the 2006 legislative history, we again do not find convincing  



                                                                                                                                    

evidence of a legislative purpose contrary to the statute's plain language. The committee  



                                                                                                                                                       

debate about traffic safety corridors did address the enforcement of drunk driving laws.  



                                                                                                                                        

The  Department  of  Transportation  and  Public  Facilities  presented  maps  to  several  



            29         Ch.  45,    4,  SLA  2006.   That  legislation  provided:  



                       Whenever   a   person   violates   a   provision  of   this   title   or   a  

                       regulation  adopted  under  the  authority  of  this  title  within  a  

                       highway  work  zone  or  traffic  safety  corridor,  notwithstanding  

                       the   amount of  the   fine   or  the  maximum   fine   set  under  this  

                       title,   the   fine,   or   maximum   fine,   is   double   the   amount  

                       provided  in  this  title.  



           30          Fyfe, 334 P.3d at 187 (quoting Green v. State, 462 P.2d 994, 1000 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                        

 1969)).  



           31          Id.  (citing  2006  Senate  Journal  2037  (governor's  January  31,  2006  

                                                                                                                                    

transmittal letter for S.B. 261, 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (2006))).  

                                                                                       



           32          Id. at 187-89.  

                                  



                                                                       -10-                                                                 7094
  


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

committees that showed the fatal or major accidents between 1977 and 2005 on five                                                          

different stretches of road, identifying those accidents that involved drugs or alcohol;                                                      33  



                                                                                                                           34  

                                                                                                                                           

legislators' responses showed clear concern with reducing such offenses.                                                       There was  



                                                                                                                                           

some discussion in the Senate Transportation Committee in particular about ways to deal  



                                                   35  

                                                        

with alcohol-impaired drivers. 



                                                                                                                           

                      On the other hand, there is no testimony directly linking the fine-doubling  



                                                                                                                                             

provision  to  drunk  driving,  despite  a  number  of  references  that  make  the  link  to  



                36  

speeding.                                                                                                                            

                     And testimony by administration witnesses repeatedly referenced "traffic  



           33         See  Working  Files  of  Sen. Transp. Comm., 24th  Leg.,  2d  Sess.,  Alaska  Leg.  



Microfiche   Collection   No.   12072   (containing   maps   of   Parks  Highway   and   Seward  

Highway);   Working   Files   of   Sen.   Fin.   Comm.,   24th   Leg.,   2d   Sess.,   Alaska   Leg.  

Microfiche  Collection  No.  3080  (containing  maps  of  Parks  Highway,  Seward  Highway,  

Sterling  Highway,  Palmer/Wasilla  Highway,  and  Knik/Goose  Bay  Road).  



           34          Statement of Senator Hollis French at 1:39:42-1:40:03,Hearing on S.B.261  

                                                                                                                                            

Before the Sen. Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 9, 2006) ("The classic Seward  

                                                                                                                                     

Highway accident is someone drifting into oncoming traffic.  That really seems to be  

                                                                                                                                             

what's killing people and for whatever terrible reason, it always seems to be that . . . a  

                                                                                                                                  

younger,  either  intoxicated  or  speeding  individual,  is  killing  .  .  .  folks  my  age.");  

                                                                                                                                                   

Statement of Senator Charlie Huggins at 2:18:45-2:19:03, Hearing on S.B. 261 Before  

                                                                                                                                      

the Sen. Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 9, 2006) (asking a trooper witness for  

                                                                                                                                             

his professional opinion of the number of fatal accidents arising out of drug and alcohol  

                                                                                                                                     

abuse).  

              



           35         See Comments of Senator John Cowdery at 1:45:52-1:47:15, Hearing on  

                                                                                                                               

S.B. 261 Before the Sen. Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 9, 2006) (suggesting  

                                                                                                                              

impounding  vehicles  of  intoxicated  drivers  even  if  the  driver  was  not  the  owner);  

                                                                                                                                    

Comments of Senators John Cowdery and Hollis French at 1:38:18-1:40:20, Hearing on  

                                                                                                                                             

S.B. 261 Before the Sen. Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 9, 2006) (discussing  

                                                                                                                               

use of concrete dividers to deter inexperienced or intoxicated drivers from drifting into  

                                                                                                                                           

oncoming lanes).  

                   



           36         Testimony of Lt. James Helgoe, Alaska State Troopers at 2:08:52-2:09:18,  

                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                          (continued...)  



                                                                     -11-                                                               7094
  


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

                                                                 37  

fines" as the enforcement tool at issue,                             a category that could be read as excluding               



           36(...continued)  



                                                                                                                                  

Hearing on S.B. 261 Before the Sen. Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 9, 2006)  

                                                                                                                                      

(stating that traffic safety corridors "will act as a deterrent against aggressive driving and  

                                                                                                                              

speeding" and that studies have shown that traffic safety corridors "create a calming  

                                                                                                                               

effect on the traffic and on the drivers because of several factors, one being the public's  

                                                                                                                                

awareness through campaign and through signage and also the risk of increased fines");  

                                                                                                                                         

Testimony of John MacKinnon, Deputy Comm'r, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities at  

                                                                                                                                   

2:34:20-2:34:33, Hearing on S.B. 261 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 24th Leg.,  

                                                                                                                                   

2d Sess. (Apr. 12, 2006) (noting that speeding fines generally ranged from $75 to $100,  

                                                                                                                                   

and that if "we double that[,] . . . that's a lot of money"); Question from Co-Chair Lyda  

                                                                                                                               

Green at 9:33:15-9:33:35, Hearing on C.S.S.B. 261 (TRA) Before the Sen. Fin. Comm.,  

                                                                                                                             

24th  Leg.,  2d  Sess.  (Mar.  21,  2006)  (asking  whether  doubling  fines  in  highway  

                                                                                                                                       

construction  zones  had  made  a  "noticeable  difference"  in  speeding);  Question  of  

                                                                                                                                 

Representative  Mike  Chenault  at  3:48:08-3:48:26,  Hearing  on  C.S.S.B.  261  (JUD)  

                                                                                                                                       

Before the House Fin. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Apr. 25, 2006) ("But there's no  

                                                                                                                                       

intent with this bill to change the current speed limit in the particular areas within the  

                                                                                                                      

zone?        It's  just  to  change  the  fine  to  a  double  fine  if  you're  caught  speeding?");  

                                                                                                                                        

Testimony of Mary Siroky, Special Assistant, Dep't of Transp. & Pub. Facilities at  

                                                                                                                                    

3:48:26-3:48:29, Hearing on C.S.S.B. 261 (JUD) Before the House Fin. Comm., 24th  

                                                                                                                           

Leg.,  2d  Sess.  (Apr.  25,  2006)  (stating  that  Representative  Chenault's  foregoing  

                                                                   

assumption was correct, and that the bill was also intended to increase enforcement in  

                            

the traffic safety corridors).  



           37        See,  e.g.,  Testimony  of  John  MacKinnon,  Deputy  Comm'r,  Dep't  of  

                                                                                                                                       

Transp. & Pub. Facilities at 2:20:53-2:21:04, Hearing on H.B. 417 Before the House  

                                                                                                                                 

Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Mar. 21, 2006) ("This bill is aimed at trying to get  

                                                                                                                                       

a handle on driver behavior by allowing us to increase enforcement and collect double  

                                                                                                                                 

traffic fines."); Testimony of John MacKinnon, Deputy Comm'r, Dep't of Transp. &  

                                                                                                                           

Pub. Facilities at 2:08:01-2:08:10, Hearing on S.B. 261 Before the Sen. Transp. Comm.,  

                                                                                                                               

24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Mar. 9, 2006) ("And along with the establishment of the safety  

                                                                                                                                  

corridor and the associated signage is double traffic fines in that area and increased  

                                                                                                                            

enforcement."). But cf. Testimony of Jeff Ottesen, Director, Div. ofProgramDev., Dep't  

                                                                                                                                   

of Transp. & Pub. Facilities at 1:37:56-1:38:02, Hearing on S.B. 261 Before the Sen.  

                                                                                                                                    

Transp. Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 9, 2006) (referencing "fines" generically but  

                                                                                                                                      

noting that fines would be doubled for traffic safety corridors "like we now do for  

                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                  -12-                                                             7094
  


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

criminal fines.   



                            As the court of appeals acknowledged, however, legislators in 2006 could                                                                    



have "assumed - . . . reasonably given the broad language of the statute - that the 1999                                                                                 



statute already doubled fines for criminal motor vehicle offenses committed in highway                                                                            



                            38  

work zones."                                                                                                                                                                 

                                  Indeed, a question by Representative Max Gruenberg - whether the  



                                                                                                                                                                              

fine-doubling  provision  should  be  extended  to  Title  11  criminal  offenses  such  as  



                                                                                                                                                                            

vehicular  homicide  and  assault  with  a  dangerous  instrument  -  suggested  his  



                                                                                                                                                                     39  

                                                                                                                                                                            

understanding that Title 28 criminal offenses were already addressed by the law.                                                                                           The  



                                                                                                                                                                             

court of appeals interpreted the response from the Department of Law to mean that the  



                                                                                                                                                                     

Department "did not understand the legislation to double fines for felony motor vehicle  



                                                                                                                                                               40  

                                                                                                                                                                              

offenses, which the Department pointed out already carried substantial fines."                                                                                      But we  



                                                                                                                                                  

consider the Department's response unclear and ambiguous at best; it could be read as  



                                                                                                                                                                   

suggesting simplythat whether toextend thefine-doubling provision to criminal offenses  



                                                                                                                                                                              

under Title 11 as well as the already-covered offenses in Title 28 was a policy call on  



              37(...continued)  



construction  work  zones").  



              38           Fyfe  v.  State,  334  P.3d   183,   188  (Alaska  2014).  



              39            Question from Representative Max  Gruenberg at 2:42:35-2:43:33, Hearing  



on  C.S.S.B.  261 (FIN)  Before  House  Judiciary  Comm.,  24th  Leg.,  2d   Sess.  (Apr.   12,  

2006);  cf.  Comments  of  Representative  Max  Gruenberg  at  2:44:59-2:45:02,  Hearing  on  

C.S.S.B.  261  (FIN)  Before  House  Judiciary  Comm.,  24th  Leg.,  2d  Sess.  (Apr.  12,  2006)  

(noting  that  Title  28  includes  some  criminal  offenses).  



              40           Fyfe, 334 P.3d at 189 (citing Testimony of Peter Putzier, Senior Assistant  

                                                                                                                                                                 

Attorney Gen., Dep't of Law at 2:44:22, Hearing on C.S.S.B. 261 (JUD) Before the  

                                                                                                                                                                             

House Judiciary Comm., 24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Apr. 12, 2006)).  

                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                     -13-                                                                                7094
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

                                                                                                                       41  

which the Department had not taken a position.                                                                              



                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                 Again, the legislative history convinced the court of appeals that the 2006  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

legislature did not intend to change the reach of AS 28.90.030(a) apart from extending  



                                                                                                                                                                                              

it to traffic safety corridors, and thus it held that "the intent of the 1998 legislature  



                         42  

controls."                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                               We agree that the intent of the statute remained the same, though we hold,  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

unlike the court of appeals, that the statute must be given its plain meaning. In short, we  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

do not find contrary legislative history in either 1998 or 2006 sufficiently convincing to  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

overcome the statute's plain language, especially in light of the broad legislative goal of  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

improving safety and reducing traffic accidents on the affected stretches of highway. We  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

hold that AS 28.90.030(a) applies to both criminal and non-criminal offenses in Title 28.  



                                                                                                                                                                                             

                 B.	             Alaska  Statute  28.90.030(a)  Does  Not  Double  Statutory  Minimum  

                                 Fines.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                  Since  the  fine-doubling  provision  of  AS  28.90.030(a)  applies  to  both  



                                                                                                                                                                                                 

criminal and non-criminal offenses under Title 28, we must decide whether the provision  



                                                                                                                                                         43  

                                                                                                                                             

doubles a mandatory minimum fine like the one at issue here.                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                               The statute provides in  



                                                                                                                                                                                                           

relevant part that "notwithstanding the amount of the fine or the maximum fine set under  



                 41              Testimony of Peter Putzier, Senior Assistant Attorney Gen., Dep't of Law                                                                                                     



at 2:44:30-2:54:14, Hearing on C.S.S.B. 261 (JUD) Before the House Judiciary Comm.,                                                                                                                  

24th Leg., 2d Sess. (Apr. 12, 2006) ("I think that's primarily a policy call whether we                                                                                                                          

want to double the fines both for criminal conduct. . . .                                                                            I think that doubling the fine for                                          

felonies, for example, well, I believe reckless driving . . . is [in] Title 28.                                                                                                       If we got into           

the felonies, I think doubling it is probably sufficient.").                                                                                  



                 42              Fyfe, 334 P.3d at 189.  

                                                                              



                 43              AS 28.35.030(n)(1) requires "a fine of not less than $10,000" for a person  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

convicted of felony driving under the influence.  

                                                                                                



                                                                                                       -14-	                                                                                                7094
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

this title,  the fine, or maximum fine                                 , is double the amount provided in this title."44  We  



                                                                                                                                                      45  

construe this language in accordance with the common rules of grammar,                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                          by which  

                                                         46  and also in accordance with the principle of expressio  

                                                                                                                                                          

                                  

"or" signals the disjunctive, 



unius est exclusio alterius, which directs us to "presume that a statute designating only  

                                                                                                                                                                     

certain powers excludes those not specifically designated."47   We also "presume that no  

                                                                                                                                                                         



words or  provisions are superfluous and  that the legislature intended  'every  word,  

                                                                                                                                                                 

sentence, or provision of a statute to have some purpose, force, and effect.' "48  Applying  

                                                                                                                                                           



those principles, we conclude that minimum fines are not affected by the statutory  

                                                                                                                                                           



mandate.  

                    



                           Various provisions of Title 28 provide for three distinct types of fines:  

                                                                                                                                                                               

fines  in  a  set  amount,  maximum  fines,  and  minimum  fines.49                                                                           Alaska  Statute  

                                                                                                                                                                               



             44            AS 28.90.030(a) (emphasis added).                        



             45            AS 01.10.040(a) ("Words and phrases shall be construed according to the                                                                      



rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage."); Emp't Sec.  

                                                                                                                                                                     

Comm'n v. Wilson                     , 461 P.2d 425, 428 (Alaska 1969) ("Because we may assume that the                                                                 

legislature knew and understood the rules of grammar, we are justified in relying on such                                                                            

rules in the interpretation of our laws.").  

                                                                  



             46            See Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800, 815 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing  

                                                                                                                                                                 

"the common rule of statutory construction that gives disjunctive and distinct meaning  

                                                                                                                                                            

to items separated by the word 'or' ").  

                                                                        



             47            State, Dep't of Revenue v. Deleon, 103 P.3d 897, 900 (Alaska 2004) (citing  

                                                                                                                                                                 

Croft v. Pan Alaska Trucking, Inc., 820 P.2d 1064, 1066 (Alaska 1991)).  

                                                                                                                                    



             48           Adamson v. Municipality of Anchorage , 333 P.3d 5, 16 (Alaska 2014)  

                                                                                                                                                                 

(quoting Monzulla v. Voorhees Concrete Cutting, 254 P.3d 341, 345 (Alaska 2011)).  

                                                                                                                                                            



             49            See, e.g., AS 28.22.019(c) (imposing a mandatory fine of $500 for failing  

                                                                                                                                                                 

to have proof of insurance); AS 28.35.400(b) (imposing a maximum fine of $1000 for  

                                                                                                                                                                        

reckless driving); AS 28.35.032(g) (imposing minimum fines for refusal to submit to a  

                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                  (continued...)  



                                                                                   -15-                                                                            7094
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

28.90.030(a) specifically affects "the fine, or maximum fine."                                                                                                          The State contends that                                



it was unnecessary to expressly list minimum fines because the term "fine" includes all                                                                                                                                            



three types of fines.                                     But then why list maximum fines separately?                                                                                        Answering this   



charge of redundancy, the State contends that the legislature reiterated "maximum fine"                                                                                                                                     



-  even though already included in "fine" - to emphasize that AS 28.90.030(a) permits                                                                                                                                 



the sentencing court to exceed the original statutory maximum; otherwise, the State                                                                                                                                        



argues, a sentencing court might have assumed that the fine it imposed was still bounded                                                                                                                          



by the maximum originally set for that specific offense.                                                                                                



                                    But   the   usual   grammatical   function   of   the   word   "or"   is   "to   mark   an  

                                                                                                      50      Thus, a word separated from another word by  

alternative such as either this or that."                                                                                                                                                                                         

"or" is ordinarily "interpreted tomean something distinct."51  This means that "maximum  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            



fine" is most likely to mean "something distinct" from "fine." And if the legislature had  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



instead intended "maximum fine" to be a mere subset of "fine," the most obvious way  

                                                                                             



to convey such an intent would have been with the words "fine, including maximum  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



               52  

fine."                   



                  49(...continued)  



                          

chemical test).  



                  50                In re Jesusa V., 85 P.3d 2, 24 (Cal. 2004) (quoting Houge v. Ford, 285 P.2d  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

257, 260 (Cal. 1955)).  

                                         



                  51                Acosta , 718 F.3d at 815; see also Chambers v. State, 811 P.2d 318, 321  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

(Alaska App. 1991) ("This use of the disjunctive 'or' in the federal definition makes it  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

apparent that the statutory language following the disjunctive - which is the disputed  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

language in this case - was not meant to modify or restrict the language that precedes  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

the disjunctive.").  

          



                  52                See In re S.A., 912 P.2d 1235, 1245 n.3 (Alaska 1996), superseded on other  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

grounds by statute, ch. 99,  1(b)(2)(B), SLA 1998, as recognized in Rowan B., Sr. v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

State,  Dep't  of  Health  &  Soc.  Servs.,  320  P.3d  1152,  1158  n.24  (Alaska  2014)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                                                               -16-                                                                                                         7094
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

                       Concluding that the words "maximum fine" are not a redundancy, we                                                        



consider whether the legislature's express inclusion of "maximum fine" indicates its                                            



intent to      exclude  "minimum fine." The principle of                                expressio unius est exclusio alterius           

                                                                                                     53   -  supports  that  intent.  

-   with   which   the   legislature   is   presumptively  familiar                                                                                    



Assuming  as  we  must  that  the  legislature  chose  its  words  deliberately,  avoided  

                                                                                                                                       



redundancies, and omitted words it intended to omit, the phrase "the fine, or maximum  

                                                                                                                                    



fine" in AS 28.90.030(a) does not include minimumfines. If the legislature had intended  

                                                                                                                                       



AS 28.90.030(a) to affect the minimum fines set by Title 28, it would have said so  

                                                                                                                                        



expressly for the same reason it listed maximum fines expressly - to signal that the  

                                                                                                                                                



original minimum had been replaced by a new statutory minimum.  Accordingly, we  

                                                                                                                                                



conclude that the phrase "the fine, or maximum fine" refers to set fines and maximum  

                                                                                    



fines but not minimum fines.  

                                         



                       Again, we would depart from this plain reading of the statute if we were  

                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                               54     We  will  

convinced  that  a  different  reading  was  required  by  legislative  history.                                                              

                                                                                                                  



            52(...continued)  



                                                                                                                                      

("According to  Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1142 (1969), 'include'  

                                                                                                                                            

means 'to place, list, or rate as a part or component of a whole or of a larger group, class,  

                          

or aggregate.' ").  



            53         See,  e.g.,  State  v.  Sutherland,  804  P.2d  970,  977  (Kan.  1991)  ("The  

                                                                                                                                          

legislature is aware of this court's established rules of statutory construction."); People  

                                                                                                                                         

v.  Costner,  870  N.W.2d  582,  585  (Mich.                                   App.  2015)  ("[I]t  is  presumed  that  the  

                                                                                                                                               

Legislature  is  familiar  with  the  rules  of  statutory  construction.");  GEA  Integrated  

                                                                                                                                   

Cooling Tech. v. State, Taxation & Rev. Dep't, 268 P.3d 48, 52 (N.M. App. 2011)  

                                                                                                                                           

("[p]resuming the Legislature is aware of our case law, prior statutes, and canons of  

                                                                                                                                                 

construction,"  and  concluding  that  the  legislature's  failure  to  require  retroactive  

                                                                                                                                  

application  of  new  tax  penalties  meant  that  pre-amendment  penalties  applied  to  

                                                                                                                                                 

assessment periods before amendment).  

                                                                       



            54         DeVilbiss  v.  Matanuska-Susitna  Borough,  356  P.3d  290,  295  (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                       



                                                                       -17-                                                                 7094
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

sometimes interpret a statute expansively if an expansive interpretation "will accomplish                                           



beneficial results, serve the purpose for which the statute was enacted, [or] is a necessary                                          

                                                    55  We have applied an expanded interpretation of a statute  

incidental to a power or right."                                                                                                            



when strict application of the expressio unius rule of construction would contravene the  

                                                                                                                                                  

purpose of the statute or make it illegal.56                             But in the criminal context we have declined  

                                                                                                                                         



to find additional sanctions implied in statutes that already enumerate sanctions, even  

                                                                                                                                               



when an expanded interpretation would theoretically promote a statute's underlying  

                                                                                                                                    

goals of safety and deterrence.57  

                                                           



                       The focus of AS 28.90.030(a) on set fines and maximum fines appears to  

                                                                                                                                                    



be a reasonable one.  The legislature doubled fines in cases in which the judge has no  

                                                                                                                                                   



discretion about the amount - those involving set fines - and it doubled the maximum  

                                                                                                                                      



in cases in which the judge's discretion to increase the fine was bounded by statute.  It  

                                                                                                                                                     



left  alone  cases  in  which  the  judge's  discretion  to  increase  the  fine  was  already  

                                                                                                                                         



            54(...continued)  



2015).  



            55         Chevron   U.S.A.,   Inc.   v.   LeResche,   663   P.2d   923,   931   (Alaska   1983)  



                                                                            ANDS,        et    al.,    SUTHERLAND                 STATUTORY  

(alteration    in  original)    (citing    2A    C.  S 

CONSTRUCTION   47.25 (4th ed. 1973)).                    



            56  

                                                                                                                                         

                       See Ellingstad v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res., 979 P.2d 1000, 1006 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                           

 1999) (declining to apply a narrow interpretation that would impede the State's interest  

                                                                                                                                           

in conveying land);  Sonneman v. Hickel, 836 P.2d 936, 939-40 (Alaska 1992) (noting  

                                                                                                                                      

that the fund in question would violate the anti-dedication clause without an expanded  

interpretation).  



            57         See Sprague v. State, 590 P.2d 410, 415-16 (Alaska 1979) (holding that  

                                                                                                                                                

punitive damages are excluded where a criminal statute lists fine or restitution for actual  

                                                                                                                                             

damages  as  sanctions); Puller  v.  Municipality  of  Anchorage,  574  P.2d  1285,  1287  

                                                                                                                                              

(Alaska 1978) (holding that refusal to submit to chemical test was inadmissible at trial,  

                                                                                                                                               

since this was not among the enumerated consequences of the statute).  

                                                                                                              



                                                                        -18-                                                                  7094
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

unrestricted - those involving minimum fines. A judge applying a statute that sets only                                                                                                                                           



a minimum fine continues to have the discretion to increase or double the fine to reflect                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          58  

the fact that the offense occurred in a highway work zone or traffic safety corridor.                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Thus  all  defendants  convicted  of  offenses  addressed  by  AS  28.90.030(a)  face  the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

prospect of higher fines. Interpreting the statute to double minimum fines set under Title  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

28 would limit a sentencing judge's discretion in a way not mandated by the plain  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

language of the statute.  Nor does the State point to contrary legislative history, other  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

than legislators' general statements about improving highway safety. We conclude that  



                                                                                                                                    

an expansive reading of AS 28.90.030(a) is not justified.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                     Because AS 28.90.030(a) does not double statutory minimum fines, it does  



                                                                                                                                                                                                               

not double the minimum fine set by AS 28.35.030(n) for driving under the influence.  



V.                 CONCLUSION  



                                     We AFFIRM on different grounds the court of appeals' order vacating  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



Fyfe's $20,000 fine, and we REMAND the case to the trial court with instructions to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



impose the statutory minimum fine of $10,000.  

                                                                                                          



                  58                 See State v. Chaney                                  , 477 P.2d 441, 443-47 (Alaska 1970) (holding that the                                                                                      



court must impose a sentence that effectuates the defendant's reformation, expresses                                                                                                                               

community condemnation, reaffirms societal norms, and reflects the                                                                                                                      wrongfulness of the                           

defendant's conduct).   



                                                                                                                  -19-                                                                                                          7094
  

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