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

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

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


Andrew Craig Simpson v State of Alaska (5/21/2021) ap-2703

Andrew Craig Simpson v State of Alaska (5/21/2021) ap-2703

                                                                           NOTICE
  

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

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

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



                                                303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
  

                                                                Fax:  (907) 264-0878
  

                                                    E-mail:  corrections @ akcourts.us
   



                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



ANDREW CRAIG SIMPSON,  

                                                                                               Court of Appeals Nos. A-13129,  

                                                   Appellant,                                            A-13139, & A-13130  

                                                                                           Trial Court Nos. 3AN-16-08118 CR, 

                                      v.                                               3AN-11-01816 CR, & 3AN-14-11502 CR  



STATE OF ALASKA,                                                                                                O P I N I O N  



                                                   Appellee.                                      [No. 2703 - May  21, 2021]  



                         Appeal  from  the  Superior  Court,   Third  Judicial  District,  

                                                                                              

                         Anchorage, Michael D. Corey and Eric A. Aarseth, Judges.  



                         Appearances:  Bradly A. Carlson, The Law Office of Bradly A.  

                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                           

                         Carlson, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency,  

                         and  Samantha  Cherot,  Public  Defender,  Anchorage,  for  the  

                         Appellant.              Patricia  L.  Haines,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  

                                                                                                                            

                         Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Kevin G. Clarkson,  

                                           

                         Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.  



                         Before:  Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.  

                                                                   



                         Judge ALLARD.  



                         Andrew   Craig   Simpson   was   charged   with   felony  driving   under   the  



influence, third-degree weapons misconduct, fourth-degree weapons misconduct, fifth-                                                                        



degree weapons misconduct, and driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked license                                                                   



after police responded to a report that Simpson was parked in front of his girlfriend's                                                         


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

                                                                            1  

home   and   refusing  to   leave.     Simpson   pleaded   guilty   to   fifth-degree   weapons  



misconduct   and   driving   with   a   canceled,   suspended   or  revoked   license.     He   was  



convicted   by   a   jury   of   felony   driving   under   the   influence,   third-degree   weapons  



misconduct, and fourth-degree weapons misconduct.                                                                                    On appeal, Simpson raises four                                       



claims of error.         



                                 First, Simpson argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion                                                        



to suppress the evidence obtained against him after the police initiated an investigative                                                                                            



stop, turned arrest.                            For the reasons explained here, we find no error in the trial court's                                                                              



ruling.  



                                 Second, Simpson argues that the trial court failed to give an additional                                                                                  



curative instruction after the prosecutor repeated an argument that the court had ruled                                                                                                                 



was improper.   Because the record shows that the trial court did give an additional  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



curative instruction, we find no merit to this claim.  

                                                                                                              



                                 Third,   Simpson   argues   that   the   trial   court  erred  when   it   allowed   the  



prosecutor to argue an "operating" theory to the jury because, according to Simpson,  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



there was legally insufficient evidence to convict him of operating.  Because the record  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



shows that there was legally sufficient evidence to convict Simpson of operating, we find  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           



no error.  

        



                                 Lastly, Simpson argues that the trial court erred when it refused to merge  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



his convictions for third-, fourth-, and fifth-degree weapons misconduct.  Because we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



conclude that merger was not required, we affirm the separate convictions for these  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



charges.  



         1      AS 28.35.030(n), AS 11.61.200(a)(1), AS 11.61.210(a)(1), AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A),  



and AS 28.15.291(a)(1), respectively.  



                                                                                                    - 2 -                                                                                               2703
  


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

                 Background facts and prior proceedings                                    



                                  During the late morning of October 9, 2016, Simpson picked up his then-                                                                                                        



girlfriend, Nora Hadley, from a local hotel to take her to her parents' home.                                                                                                                                When  



Simpson arrived, Hadley smelled alcohol on his breath and could tell he had been                                                                                                                                 



drinking.  Simpson and Hadley then drank more alcohol while sitting in the car in the                                                                                                                                 



hotel parking lot before departing for Hadley's parents' home.                                                                                                        Upon arriving at her                           



parents' home, Hadley told Simpson she needed to change her clothes and went inside.                                                                                                                                             



Once inside her parents' home, she called 911 to report that Simpson was "intoxicated,"                                                                                                    

"smoking weed and meth," parked outside her home, and refusing to leave.                                                                                                                          2  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                  Officers Heidi Schaeffer and Aaron Hostetter responded to  the call in  



                                                                                                                                                                                                             

separate cars.  One officer parked in front of Simpson's car and the other parked behind  



                                                                                                                                                                                  

Simpson's car in order to block it in.  Officer Schaeffer then walked up to the driver's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                             

side door and asked Simpson for his license and if he had any weapons. Simpson denied  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

having any weapons, but he patted a long object in his front left pants pocket as he did  



so.  



                                                                                                                                                                          

                                   Simpson's car was not running, but Simpson was in the driver's seat and  



                                                                                                                                                                                                            

the keys were on a belt loop in Simpson's lap.  Simpson admitted to driving the vehicle  



                                                                                                                                                                                                      

to its current location, and he indicated that he intended to drive away when his girlfriend  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

returned.  Simpson also admitted to drinking a couple shots of alcohol before driving.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Officer Schaeffer noticed that Simpson had red, watery eyes and she smelled alcohol on  



                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Simpson's breath and a "strong" odor of burnt marijuana coming from his car.  Officer  



                                                                                                                                                                                              

Schaeffer also observed that Simpson "hadahard timefocusing"during his conversation  



                                                                                                

with her before he stepped out of the car.  



         2       Hadley's testimony at trial differed from the 911 recording.                                                                                      At trial, Hadley testified   



that she left the vehicle and called 911 from the home because she did not feel safe in the car                                    

and that Simpson did not smoke marijuana or methamphetamine while in the car.  



                                                                                                         -  3 -                                                                                                  2703
  


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

                    Officer Schaeffer asked Simpson to step out of the car to perform field  

                                                                                                                              



sobriety tests. After Simpson exited the car, Officer Schaeffer indicated that she wanted  

                                                                                                                          



to conduct a pat-down search.  Simpson then attempted to run away from the officers.  

                                                                                                                                      



The officers caught up with him and placed him in handcuffs.   After being cuffed,  

                                                                                                      



Simpson disclosed that he had a gun in his front left pocket - the same pocket with the  

                                                                                                                                



long object that he patted while claiming he did not have any weapons.  

                                                                                               



                     Simpson was arrested and taken to jail, where the officers attempted to  

                                                                                                                                 



administer  field  sobriety  tests.                  The  officers  completed  only  the  horizontal  gaze  

                                                                                                           



nystagmus test, which showed a lack of smooth pursuit in both eyes.  The officers then  

                                                                                                                              



administered a breath test, which indicated that Simpson had a breath alcohol level  

                                                                                                                             



of .076. An expert for the State later testified that, based on the results of the breath test,  

                                                                                                                               



Simpson's breath alcohol level was somewhere between .069 and .12 at the time he was  

                                                                                                                               



driving.  



                     Simpson was charged with driving with a canceled, suspended, or revoked  

                                                                                                                         



license and felony driving under the influence because he had six prior convictions for  

                                                                                                                                



driving under the influence. He was also charged with third-degree weapons misconduct  

                                                                                                                   



for possessing a concealable handgun after being convicted of a felony, fourth-degree  

                                                                                                                



weapons misconduct for possessing a gun while intoxicated, and fifth-degree weapons  

                                                                                                                       



misconduct for failing to inform the officers regarding the presence of the gun. Simpson  

                                                                                                                        



pleaded guilty to the driving while license canceled, suspended, or revoked charge and  

                                                                                                                               



the fifth-degree weapons misconduct charge, and went to trial on the remaining charges.  

                                                                                                                                      



Thejury convicted himofdrivingunder theinfluence,third-degreeweaponsmisconduct,  

                                                                                                                   



and fourth-degree weapons misconduct.  Simpson waived his right to a jury trial on his  

                                                                                                                                



prior driving under the influence convictions, and the trial court found him guilty of  

                                                                                                                                 



felony driving under the influence after a short bench trial. At sentencing, the trial court  

                                                                                                                             



imposed  5  years  with  2  years  suspended  (3  years  to  serve)  for  driving  under  the  

                                                                                                                               



                                                              - 4 -                                                         2703
  


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

influence, 2 years to serve for the third-degree weapons misconduct to run consecutively                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



to   the   driving   under   the   influence   charge,  180   days   to   serve   for   the   fourth-degree  



weapons misconduct to run concurrently, 30 days to serve for the fifth-degree weapons                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



misconduct to run consecutively, and 1                                                                                                                                                       year  to  serve for the driving while license                                                                                                                             



canceled, suspended, or revoked to run concurrently for a composite sentence of 7 years                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



and 30 days with 2 years suspended (5 years and 30 days to serve).                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                                             This appeal followed.                                 



                              Simpson's motion to suppress                                                                    



                                                             Prior to trial, Simpson filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



against him as a result of the investigatory stop and arrest, arguing that the officers (1)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



lacked reasonable suspicion to contact him; (2) lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



the pat-down                                                       search; (3) lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



influence; (4) improperly asked him to perform field sobriety tests at the police station                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



after his arrest; and (5) lacked authority to request a breath sample.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Following an  



evidentiary hearing, the trial court rejected all of these arguments and denied the motion                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



to suppress.                                            Simpson now renews these arguments on appeal.                                                                                                                                                     



                                                             Simpson first challenges the initial investigatory stop.                                                                                                                                                                                                   An investigatory   



 stop requires "reasonable suspicion that imminent public danger exists or serious harm                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                                                           3  

to persons or property has recently occurred."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Reasonable suspicion exists if the totality  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

of the circumstances indicates that there is a substantial possibility that conduct giving  



                                                                                                                                                                           4  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

rise to a public danger has occurred.                                                                                                                                                 Reasonable suspicion requires more than "an  



               3               Coleman v. State, 553 P.2d 40, 46 (Alaska 1976).  



               4              Beltz v. State, 221 P.3d 328, 337 (Alaska 2009).  



                                                                                                                                                                                          -  5 -                                                                                                                                                                                 2703
  


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

                                                                                                5  

inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch."                                                 The officer must identify "specific              



and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,                                                                    

reasonably warrant [the] intrusion."                                6  



                                                                                                                                                           

                         Here, the officers received a 911 call from Simpson's girlfriend who  



                                                                                                                                                            

reported that Simpson was intoxicated, "smoking weed and meth," and that he was  



                                                                                                                                                            

now sitting in the driver's seat of a parked car outside her residence, refusing to  



                                                                                                                                                             

leave.         This         information                was        sufficient            to      justify         the       police          initiating           an  



                                                                                                          7  

                              

investigatorystop so that they could question Simpson. 



                                                                                                                                                    

                         Moreover, as soon as theofficers arrived,they obtained additionalevidence  



                                                                                                                                                         

of  potential  public  danger  sufficient  to  meet  the  more  stringent  standard  to  arrest  



                                                                                                                                                               

Simpson. Probable cause to arrest exists if the totality of the circumstances known to the  



                                                                                                                                                                  8  

                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                              

officer would support a reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed. 



                                                                                                                                                            

After the officers parked and began to approach Simpson, they could smell a strong odor  



                                                                                                                                                              

of marijuana coming from the car.  Upon contacting Simpson, the officers smelled the  



                                                                                                                                                            

odor of alcohol coming fromSimpson's breath and observed that he had red, watery eyes  



                                                                                                                                                     

and that he had difficulty tracking the conversation.  Simpson also admitted to driving,  



                                                                                                                                                             

drinking shots of alcohol, and smoking "a little bit" of marijuana that day.  All of this  



      5     McQuade v. State , 130 P.3d 973, 977 (Alaska App. 2006) (quoting                                                             In re J.A. , 962  



P.2d 173, 176 (Alaska 1998)).  



      6      Waring v. State, 670 P.2d 357, 365 (Alaska 1983) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.  



 1, 21 (1968)).  



      7  

                                                                                                                                                                

             See Romo v. Anchorage, 697 P.2d 1065, 1069 (Alaska App. 1985) (holding that an  

imminent public danger exists when an intoxicated driver retains possession and control of  

a motor vehicle).  



      8      State v. Joubert, 20 P.3d 1115, 1118-19 (Alaska 2001).  



                                                                             - 6 -                                                                        2703
  


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

information, taken together, was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest Simpson                                                                     



for driving under the influence.            



                           On   appeal,   Simpson   challenges   the   officers'   attempt   to   conduct   field  



sobriety tests at the police station.                                But because the officers had probable cause to arrest                                          



Simpson for driving under the influence, they necessarily had the reasonable suspicion                                                                      



                                                                                                                         9  

required   to   ask   Simpson   to   perform   field   sobriety   tests.                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                               Moreover,  contrary  to  



                                                                                                                                                          

Simpson's claims, the request to complete field sobriety tests did not violate Simpson's  



                                                                                                                                                                   10  

                                                                                                                                                                         

Miranda rights because field sobriety tests are generally non-testimonial in nature.                                                                                   We  



                                                                                                                                                                   

likewise see no issue with the police administering these tests at the police station rather  



                                                                                                                                                                         

than at the scene given that probable cause to arrest Simpson already existed without the  



                                       11  

                             

field sobriety tests. 



                                                                                                                                                                          

                           Simpson also challenges the pat-down search, arguing that there was no  



                                                                                                                                                                        

reasonable  suspicion  to  believe  that  he  had  any  weapons.                                                                  But  testimony  at  the  



                                                                                                                                                                    

evidentiary hearing established that the officers saw a long object in Simpson's pants  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

pocket,  and  that  Simpson  patted  that  area  when  he  denied  having  any  weapons.  



                                                                                                                                                                       

Testimony from the evidentiary hearing also established that Simpson reached for that  



                                                                                                                                                                           

same pocket when he first got out of the car, further justifying the officer's decision to  



                                          

conduct a pat-down search.  



                                                                                                                                                                       

                           Lastly, Simpson argues that the officers lacked the authority to require him  



                                                                                                                                                               

to submit to a breath test.   We find no merit to this claim.   Under Alaska's implied  



                                                                                                                                                                    

consent law, a driver of a motor vehicle who has been lawfully arrested for driving under  



       9      See Hurlburt v. State, 425 P.3d 189, 195 (Alaska App. 2018).  



       10    Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Alaska 1979).  



       11     Cf. id.  (concluding that post-arrest administration of breath test at police station and   



"several physical tests designed to determine whether, and to what extent, the defendant was  

under the influence of intoxicating liquor" was proper).  



                                                                                   -  7 -                                                                           2703
  


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

the influence must submit to a breath test or face potential charges for refusing to submit                                                                                          



                                         12  

to a chemical test.                                                                                                                                                                         

                                              Simpson was arrested, in part, based on probable cause that he was  



                                                                                                                         

driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence.  



                                                                                                                                                                                               

                              Accordingly,  we  affirm  the  superior  court's  ruling  on  the  motion  to  



suppress.  



                The prosecutor's improper argument  

                                                                              



                              During closing argument, the prosecutor argued to the jury that "it's up to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



you to decide whether you think someone in Mr. Simpson's condition is okay to drive.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



If you want someone like him on your roads, in your community . . . ."  This line of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

argument was improper.13  

                                  



                                                                                                                                                                                         

                               Simpson's attorney objected to the prosecutor's statements. The trial court  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

sustained the objection and gave a curative instruction, instructing the jury that "the  



                                                                                                                                                                                            

problem with the argument is that it puts you in the street . . . .  But this isn't about any  



                                                                                                                                                                                                       

prejudice or sympathy towards anyone in particular. You need to decide this objectively.  



                                                                                                                                                                               

Are the facts there or not, regardless of how you might personally feel about it."  



                                                                                                                                                                            

                              Despite  the  fact  that  the  trial  court  sustained  the  defense  attorney's  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

objection and gave a curative instruction, the prosecutor returned to this same line of  



                                                                                                                                                                              

argument later in her closing argument, again telling the jury, "If you want an individual  



                                                                                                                               

like Mr. Simpson driving around, that decision is up to you."  



        12     See AS 28.35.031(a).  



        13     See  ABA  Standards  for  Criminal   Justice    3-6.8(c)  at  37  (4th  ed.  2017)  ("The  



prosecutor should not make arguments calculated to appeal to improper prejudices of the trier                                                                                               

of fact. The prosecutor should make only those arguments that are consistent with the trier's       

duty to decide the case on the evidence, and should not seek to divert the trier from that                                                                                                  

duty."); see also Hess v. State, 435 P.3d 876, 881 (Alaska 2018) (citing to  3-6.8(c) to  

support the conclusion that the prosecutor in that case made an improper argument).  



                                                                                             -  8 -                                                                                      2703
  


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

                     On appeal, Simpson argues that the trial court erred because, according to  

                                                                                                                                   



Simpson, the trial court failed to give a second curative instruction after the prosecutor  

                                                                                                                     



repeated the improper argument.  But the record clearly shows that the trial court did  

                                                                                                                                 



give a second curative instruction after the closing arguments were concluded. The trial  

                                                                                                                                



court once again instructed the jury that their role was to view the facts objectively and  

                                                                                                                                



to follow the law, regardless of their personal opinion regarding drinking and driving.  

                                                                                                                                       



The trial court also instructed the jury that this part of the prosecutor's argument was  

                                                                                                                



improper and that it was to hold the State to its burden.  The court then confirmed with  

                                                                                                                               



the jurors that they were able to do so: "Everybody clear they can follow the instruction?  

                                                                                                                    



Anyone can't follow the instruction, please raise your hand.  No hands.  Okay."  

                                                                                                                 



                    Accordingly,becausethetrial court respondedtotheprosecutor's improper  

                                                                                                                        



argument with appropriate curative instructions, we find no merit to this claim of error.  

                                                                                                                                       



           The jury instruction on "operating" a motor vehicle  

                                                                                 



                    At trial, the prosecutor argued that Simpson had driven to his girlfriend's  

                                                                                                                    



house while intoxicated.  The prosecutor also argued that Simpson had "operated" the  

                                                                                                                                 



parked car while intoxicated because he was in full physical control of the car with the  

                                                                                                                                 



keys at ready access to drive away at any time. The trial court instructed the jury on both  

                                                                                                                               



"driving" and "operating." Simpson objected to the instruction on "operating," arguing  

                                                                                                                          



that there was insufficient evidence to convict himof operating. The trial court overruled  

                                                                                                                       



the objection.  

       



                     On appeal, Simpson renews hisargument that thejuryshould not havebeen  

                                                                                                                               



instructed on "operating" because, according to Simpson, there was legally insufficient  

                                                                                                                    



evidence to convict him of operating because he "made no movements to indicate a  

                                                                                                                                    



present intent to move the car." But the jury could reasonably infer an intent to move the  

                                                                                                                                 



car based on Simpson's statements and his actions in sitting in the driver's seat with his  

                                                                                                                                 



                                                               -  9 -                                                        2703
  


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

keys in easy reach.                    In any event, as the State points out, the appellate courts have                                             



previously upheld operating convictions based on similar facts and Simpson fails to                                                                      

meaningfully distinguish his case from those prior cases.                                              14  



                                                                              

            Merger of the weapons misconduct convictions  



                                                                                                                                              

                        Whether guilty verdicts merge into a single conviction is a mixed question  



                                                                                                                                                   

of fact and law - the facts underlying the offenses are reviewed for clear error but "[t]he  



                                                                                                                                                        

ultimate legal question  of merger  under  the double-jeopardy  clause is reviewed  de  



             15  

novo."                                                                                                                                           

                  Multiple convictions arising from the same course of conduct do not violate  



                                                                                                                                                        

double jeopardy when the differences in intent and conduct between the offenses are  



                                                                                                                               16  

                                                                                                                                           

"substantial or significant enough to warrant multiple punishments."                                                                To determine  



                                                                                                                                                       

whether multiple punishments are warranted, this Court looks to "the quality of the  



                                                                                                                                         

differences, if any exist, between the separate statutory offenses, as such differences  



                                                                                                                                                17  

                                                                                                                                                    This  

relate to the basic interests sought to be vindicated or protected by the statutes." 



                                                                                                                                             

requires examining both "the conduct punished as well as the societal interests protected  



                                     18  

                     

by the two statutes." 



      14    See, e.g., State v. Conley, 754 P.2d 232, 236 (Alaska 1988) (concluding that defendant  



was in "actual physical control" of her vehicle even though the engine was not running where  

                                                            

she was seated in driver's seat, had possession of ignition key, and was attempting to put key  

                                                                                                           

in ignition); Kingsley v. State, 11 P.3d 1001, 1002-03 (Alaska App. 2000) (finding evidence  

legally sufficient to convict defendant of "operating" when defendant was the sole occupant  

                                                                       

in the vehicle and was sitting in the driver's seat with the keys in his pocket after driving his  

car into a snow berm).  



      15    Johnson v. State , 328 P.3d 77, 81 (Alaska 2014).  



      16     Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302, 312 (Alaska 1970).  



      17    Id.  



      18    Johnson , 328 P.3d at 88 (quoting Mead v. State , 489 P.2d 738, 743 (Alaska 1971)).  



                                                                         -  10 -                                                                    2703
  


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

                     Here,   Simpson   was   convicted   of   three   different   weapons   misconduct  



charges: (1)        third-degree weapons misconduct for possessingaconcealablefirearmafter                                     



                                            19  

being convicted of a felony;                                                                                                        

                                               (2) fourth-degree weapons misconduct for possessing a  



                                                                                                              20  

                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                 and (3) fifth- 

firearm while impaired by intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance; 



                                                                                                                                   

degree weapons misconduct for  failing to inform the police that he was carrying a  



                                            21  

                                                                                                                              

concealable deadly weapon.                       Simpson argues that all three convictions should have  



                                                           

merged into a single conviction.  We disagree.  



                                                                                                                        

                     We  have  previously  held  in  an  unpublished  opinion  that  separate  



                                                                                                                    

convictions for third-degree weapons misconduct (felon in possession of concealable  



                                                                                                                            

firearm)   and   fourth-degree   weapons   misconduct   (possession   of   firearm   while  



                                                                                                                         

intoxicated)  do  not  merge  because  they  "implicate  significantly  different  societal  



               22  

                                                                                                                            

interests."        As we explained in that case, the third-degree weapons misconduct statute  



                                                                                                                        

prohibiting felons from possessing concealable firearms is a status offense that prohibits  



                                                                                                                                 

a  certain  class  of  people  (convicted  felons)  from  possessing  firearms  that  can  be  



                23  

concealed.                                                                                                          

                      In contrast, the fourth-degree weapons misconduct statute prohibiting  



                                                                                                                      

possession of a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or controlled  



                                                                                                       

substance applies equally to all persons and is more akin to the prohibition against  



     19   AS 11.61.200(a)(1).  



     20   AS 11.61.210(a)(1).  



     21   AS 11.61.220(a)(1)(A).  



     22   See  Glover  v.  State,  2020  WL  232799,  at  *2  (Alaska    App.   Jan.  15,  2020)  



(unpublished) (holding that fourth-degree weapons misconduct does not merge with third- 

degree weapons misconduct); see also Ladick v. State, 2005 WL 19222, at *2 (Alaska App.  

Jan. 5, 2005) (unpublished) (holding that fourth-degree weapons misconduct was not a lesser  

included offense of third-degree weapons misconduct).  



     23   Glover, 2020 WL 232799, at *2.  



                                                              -  11 -                                                        2703
  


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

                                                               24  

driving under the influence.                                        The two offenses thus involve different elements and are                                                                  



directed at different dangers.                 



                              We    likewise    conclude    that    a    conviction    for    fifth-degree    weapons  



misconduct does not merge with either of the other weapons offenses because it involves                                                                                          



different conduct and is directed at a different societal interest - namely, the protection                                                                                   



of police officers by creating                                         an   affirmative duty to                              report any                 concealable deadly   



                     25  

weapons. 



                                                                                                                                                                                         

                              Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to merge these  



             

three convictions.  



                Conclusion  



                                                                                                                     

                              The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.  



        24     Id.  



        25     See  De  Nardo  v.  State,  819  P.2d  903,  907  (Alaska  App.  1991)  ("[T]he  policy  



                                                                                                                                                                                  

underlying concealed weapons statutes is to prevent the surprise use of deadly force by  

                                                                                                                                                               

prohibiting people from 'having, readily available for use, weapons of which others are  

unaware.'") (quoting Anchorage v. Lloyd , 679 P.2d 486, 487 (Alaska App. 1984)).  



                                                                                            -  12 -                                                                                      2703  

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