(Download) "Robert G. Blake v. State Alaska" by Court Of Appeals Of Alaska " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Robert G. Blake v. State Alaska
- Author : Court Of Appeals Of Alaska
- Release Date : January 21, 1988
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 59 KB
Description
Robert G. Blake was convicted by a jury of taking a sow grizzly bear accompanied by cubs in violation of former 5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 81.320(2); taking a grizzly bear in a closed season, former 5 AAC 81.320(2); taking an overlimit grizzly, former 5 AAC 81.320(2); taking game in a closed area, AS 16.05.789(a); and misconduct involving weapons in the second degree, AS 11.61.210(a)(1). For misconduct involving weapons, Blake was sentenced to thirty days with twenty days suspended, and fined $2,000 with $1,000 suspended. For each of the other four charges, he received identical sentences of four months with all but thirty days suspended and an unsuspended $1,000 fine. These sentences were to run concurrent to each other, but consecutive to the misconduct involving weapons sentence. Blake was ordered to donate the value of his weapon, $350, to the Wildlife Safeguard Fund. Blakes hunting license was revoked for three years, and he was placed on probation for five years. Blake therefore received a composite sentence of five months with all but sixty days suspended and a fine of $3,350 with $1,000 suspended. Blake appealed his sentence. We affirmed in part but remanded the case to the trial court in order to permit a hearing on Blakes claim that certain statements were admitted against him in violation of his rights underMiranda v.Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966).Blake v.State, Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 1509 (Alaska App. 1987). Specifically, we asked the trial court to determine: (1) whether Blake was in "custody" at the time he made incriminating statements and, if so, (2) whether he made statements in response to an "interrogation." On remand, the court did not reach the second determination because it concluded that Blake was not in custody when he made the incriminating statements. Blake appeals. We affirm.