In Penetac v. Municipality of Anchorage, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not err in sentencing Eric Scott Penetac under the Anchorage Municipal Code rather than under state law where municipal code authority was not prohibited. Penetac was found guilty of two counts of child neglect under the Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC), and subsequently sentenced to 365 days in jail with 290 days suspended. On appeal, Penetac argued that his AMC sentence was illegal because it exceeded the 30-day presumptive maximum sentence that he likely would have faced if convicted and sentenced under state law. Penetac further contended that the court’s failure to apply the state sentencing scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Alaska Constitution. The court of appeals disagreed. First, the court of appeals held that Anchorage’s broad legislative powers as a “home rule” city allow it to rightly charge and sentence Penetac under the AMC where such action is not expressly or impliedly prohibited by state law. The court of appeals further concluded that the AMC did not, as Penetac asserted, incorporate state law into its sentencing scheme, because such an interpretation would lead to absurd results. Finally, the Court of Appeals found Penetac’s Equal Protection Clause claim to be without merit because he did not show that he was similarly situated to persons convicted of Class A misdemeanors under state law simply because he was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor under the AMC. Accordingly, the court of appeals held that the trial court did not err in sentencing Penetac under the AMC rather than under state law, and affirmed Penetac’s sentence.
 436 P.3d 1089 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019)