Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
COATS, Chief Judge.
In a jury trial conducted by Superior Court Judge Eric A. Aarseth, Charles Egbe was convicted of robbery in the first degree for his role in an armed robbery of a restaurant called China King. As a first felony offender, Egbe faced a presumptive range of five to eight years of imprisonment.1 At the sentencing hearing, Judge Aarseth found applicable the statutory mitigating factor that "the defendant, although an accomplice, played only a minor role in the commission of the offense."2 Although, based on the mitigating factor, Judge Aarseth was authorized to reduce Egbe's presumptive term to two and one-half years to serve, Judge Aarseth referred Egbe's case to the three-judge panel on two separate grounds: (1) that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider the non-statutory mitigating factor that Egbe had exceptional prospects for rehabilitation, and (2) that manifest injustice would result from imposition of the presumptive term, even adjusted for the statutory mitigating factor.
Although the three-judge panel found that Egbe had exceptional prospects for rehabilitation, it concluded that manifest injustice would not result from imposition of the minimum presumptive term as adjusted for the mitigating factor — two and one-half years of imprisonment. The panel therefore remanded the case back to Judge Aarseth.
Judge Aarseth imposed a sentence of five years with two and one-half years suspended. On appeal, Egbe argues that the evidence the State presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. He also argues that the three-judge panel erred in failing to find that manifest injustice would result from failing to further adjust the sentence in light of Egbe's extraordinary potential for rehabilitation. We affirm.
Factual and procedural background
On the evening of August 11, 2007, Charles Egbe, Marquis Hiriams, and another unidentified man approached the China King restaurant on East Fireweed Lane in Anchorage. Fangsong Lin, the owner, was closing the restaurant and had already emptied the till of bills, but some coins remained in the register. It was between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m. on a Saturday night. All the customers had left. The employees were cleaning the restaurant. The three men came through the outer door. Two of them stayed in the arctic entryway while Hiriams opened the second door and asked Lin to come out and help. When Lin walked over to them, Hiriams pulled out a gun, seized him by the shirt, and pulled him out of the building. The unidentified man then pushed Lin against the building while Hiriams continued to threatened Lin with the gun. During this time, Egbe was holding the outside door open. Lin testified that the door would close automatically unless someone held it open.
Hiriams and the unidentified man pulled Lin back into the restaurant to the cash register. Hiriams yelled at Lin and told him to give him money. At this point, Egbe was holding the inside door open. Seeing that there were no bills in the cash register, Hiriams hit Lin in the face. Lin was afraid for his life and did not move. Hiriams took the coins from the cash register. The three men then fled the premises.
Benjamin White called 911 from a car driving past the restaurant while the robbery was occurring. White testified at trial that, as he and his girlfriend drove west down Fireweed Lane, he noticed three black men and one white man outside of China King. He noticed that one of the black men was holding a semi-automatic pistol. The man holding the gun was also holding the white man by the jacket, and the other two men were standing a bit behind them. He testified that they appeared threatening.
Several officers responded to the scene. They caught up with Egbe and Hiriams running side-by-side and arrested them. Hiriams had a BB gun disguised as a Glock as well as approximately seven dollars in quarters. Egbe had a cell phone and $171 in cash. Egbe and Hiriams were arrested. The third man was apparently never identified.
Based on these events, Egbe and Hiriams were charged with robbery in the first degree.
Shortly before trial, Hiriams pled guilty to robbery in the first degree, and in exchange the State agreed not to oppose the "least serious conduct" mitigating factor. Although sentencing was open, Hiriams was ultimately sentenced to two and one-half years to serve. Egbe proceeded to trial and was ultimately convicted.
Why we conclude there was sufficient evidence to convict Egbe of robbery in the first degree
An individual may be convicted of a crime based on the conduct of another for which he is accountable as an accomplice. As applicable to this case, a person is "legally accountable for the conduct of another constituting an offense if ... with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense, the person ... aids or abets the other in planning or committing the offense."3
The State alleged that Egbe was liable as an accomplice for Hiriams's actions during the robbery of the China King restaurant. The State therefore had the burden of proving that Egbe intentionally aided or abetted Hiriams in planning or committing the armed robbery.
When we review a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction, we must uphold the jury's verdict unless the defendant can show that no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.4 We review the evidence and the inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict.5
According to the evidence presented at trial, Egbe, Hiriams, and the unidentified man appeared when the restaurant was closing. Hiriams lured the restaurant owner, Fangsong Lin, to the door of the restaurant, asking for help. During the robbery, both Hiriams and the unidentified man had guns. Hiriams threatened and assaulted Lin with his gun; the unidentified man had a gun in his pocket. Egbe assisted the robbery by holding the restaurant door open. The door would have closed automatically had Egbe not held it open. When the police responded to the robbery, they apprehended Egbe and Hiriams running from the scene side-by-side. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict, is sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that Egbe intentionally aided or abetted Hiriams and the unidentified man in planning or carrying out the robbery.
Why we conclude that the three-judge panel did not err in declining jurisdiction
As we previously stated, Judge Aarseth referred Egbe's case to the three-judge panel on two separate grounds: (1) that manifest injustice would result from failure to consider the non-statutory mitigating factor that Egbe had exceptional prospects for rehabilitation, and (2) that manifest injustice would result from imposition of the presumptive term, even adjusted for the statutory mitigating factor. Although the three-judge panel found that Egbe had exceptional prospects for rehabilitation, it concluded that manifest injustice would not result from imposition of the minimum presumptive term as adjusted for the mitigating factor — two and one-half years of imprisonment. The panel therefore remanded the case back to Judge Aarseth, who imposed a sentence of five years with two and one-half years suspended.
Egbe contends that the three-judge panel erred in declining to accept jurisdiction and by not imposing a sentence of less than two and one-half years of imprisonment, the lowest sentence available to Judge Aarseth. The three-judge panel consisted of three superior court judges: Judge Michael Thompson, Judge Mark I. Wood, and Judge Eric Smith. Judge Thompson concluded that a sentence of two and one-half years of imprisonment was not too harsh because Egbe had committed a serious offense, robbery in the first degree. He concluded that the sentencing factors of community condemnation and the need to deter others would not be given sufficient weight by imposing a sentence of less than two and one-half years. Judge Smith concluded that, although a shorter sentence might be appropriate, he could not find that a sentence of two and one-half years of imprisonment was clearly mistaken. Judge Wood concluded that a sentence of two and one-half years of imprisonment was "a fair and just sentence and not manifestly unjust."
The record shows that the three-judge panel carefully evaluated the evidence, including Egbe's excellent prospects for rehabilitation. But the panel concluded that a sentence of two and one-half years of imprisonment was not manifestly unjust. Accordingly, under our recent decision in Garner v. State, the panel applied the correct standard in declining jurisdiction and sending the case back to Judge Aarseth for sentencing.6 We conclude that the three-judge panel's conclusion is not clearly mistaken.7
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
