## Facts

- David Leuch pled guilty to two counts of grand larceny arising from (1) theft of two motorcycles from a Fairbanks Harley-Davidson dealership and (2) theft of a safe, a dolly, and about $12,000 in cash and checks from the Healy Roadhouse.
- The Healy Roadhouse theft involved planning over roughly two weeks and a substantial monetary loss.
- Leuch’s background included a stable upbringing, high school graduation, and prior employment; his earlier record largely consisted of traffic offenses.
- Before the grand larceny offenses, Leuch had been convicted of multiple counts of unemployment fraud (resulting in a short jail term, fine, and restitution) and later of petty larceny and unauthorized entry (resulting in a short jail term).
- The superior court imposed concurrent sentences of eight years’ imprisonment with four years suspended on each count (four years to serve).
- The sentencing judge emphasized Leuch’s prior dishonesty-related convictions but noted mitigating considerations including acceptance of responsibility and good institutional conduct.
- Leuch appealed only the sentence as excessive; the convictions were not contested.

## Issues

1. Whether concurrent sentences of eight years with four years suspended for two grand larceny counts were “clearly mistaken” and therefore excessive under Alaska sentence-appeal review.
2. How the Chaney sentencing goals should be applied to a first-felony, nonviolent property offender whose crimes involved significant planning and monetary loss.
3. Whether the amount of unsuspended time and the scale of suspended time were proportionate for a first-felony, nonviolent property offender with a prior record of nonviolent dishonesty offenses.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held the sentences were excessive under the “clearly mistaken” standard.
- The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing.
- The court directed that resentencing reflect established sentencing norms for first-felony, nonviolent property offenders, calling for a substantially shorter period of unsuspended incarceration and proportionate use of suspended time.

## Legal Principles

- Alaska sentencing must apply the Chaney goals: rehabilitation, isolation to protect the public, deterrence (individual and general), and community condemnation/reaffirmation of societal norms.
- Appellate sentence review asks whether the imposed sentence is “clearly mistaken” in light of the offense, the offender, and sentences imposed in comparable cases.
- For first-felony, nonviolent property offenders, substantial prison terms are generally disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances; sentencing should typically emphasize rehabilitation and restitution over extended isolation.
- Planning and large monetary loss are aggravating considerations, but they do not alone justify treating a nonviolent property offender as a worst-type offender comparable to violent or highly dangerous criminals.
- Suspended imprisonment should be imposed with care and proportionality; combining lengthy time to serve with large suspended exposure may be excessive for first-felony, nonviolent property offenders.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court concluded that imposing four years to serve (and four additional years suspended) for Leuch’s first felony-level, nonviolent property offenses fell outside the permissible range for comparable cases, and it vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with proportional, Chaney-based benchmarks for property offenders.


Leuch v. State, 633 P.2d 1006 (Alaska 1981)