(DOWNLOAD) "David Miller v. State Alaska" by Supreme Court of Alaska ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: David Miller v. State Alaska
- Author : Supreme Court of Alaska
- Release Date : January 06, 1982
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 55 KB
Description
MATTHEWS, Justice. OPINION David Miller pled nolo contendere to two misdemeanor counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. His pleas were first accepted and later rejected by the superior court. Miller was then indicted on six felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts toward children which included the conduct charged in the original information. Two counts of the indictment, one of which included the conduct charged in Count II of the information, were dismissed on Miller's motion after the State had rested its case following the inability of the minor involved to testify. Miller was acquitted of one other count of the indictment and convicted on the remaining three. On appeal, we reversed holding that the trial court erred in rejecting appellant's pleas of nolo contendere and remanded for reinstatement of the nolo pleas. Miller v. State, 617 P.2d 516, 519 (Alaska 1980). On remand Miller was sentenced, based on his previous pleas of nolo contendere, to six-month terms on each count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, to be served consecutively. At the sentencing hearing Miller indicated that he wished to change his plea to not guilty. He also moved to dismiss the second count of the information on the grounds that felony charges necessarily including the crime there charged had been dismissed with prejudice, and that any further proceedings thereon would amount to double jeopardy. The trial court denied both requests and gave the defendant the choice of standing on his previously entered nolo plea as to both counts or of facing reinstatement of his conviction of three counts of lewd or lascivious acts toward a child which were reversed by this court on Miller's first appeal. Faced with that choice, the defendant decided to adhere to his previously entered nolo contendere plea. He then appealed.