BOLGER, Judge.
Harold E. Simon and an accomplice were arrested for stealing watches from a store in Anchorage. Simon was charged with theft in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor, based on the allegation that he had been convicted of at least two prior theft offenses within the preceding five years. The charging document listed forty-nine prior convictions for various misdemeanors under the heading "Bail Information."
AS 11.46.140(a)(3).
Simon pled no contest at his arraignment. The district court magistrate found that Simon had twenty-two prior convictions for theft-related offenses, extending over the previous twenty years. The magistrate also found, based on an offer of proof from the prosecutor, that Simon had been sentenced to a year in custody for a prior conviction of theft in the third degree. Based on Simon's criminal history, the magistrate concluded that he was a worst offender for sentencing purposes. The court imposed a sentence of 360 days' imprisonment, close to the maximum for this offense.
AS 12.55.135(a) ("A defendant convicted of a class A misdemeanor may be sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of not more than one year").
Simon appeals, contending that his sentence was excessive. Generally a maximum sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed unless the defendant is characterized as a worst offender. A worst offender is defined as the worst type of offender within the group of persons committing the offense in question. A worst offender finding may be based on the defendant's criminal history, on the circumstances surrounding the offense, or both. A worst offender designation will justify the imposition of the maximum sentence of imprisonment.
Howell v. State, 115 P.3d 587, 592-93 (Alaska App. 2005).
Hintz v. State, 627 P.2d 207, 210 (Alaska 1981).
Howell, 115 P.3d at 593.
Brown v. State, 693 P.2d 324, 330 (Alaska App. 1984) (citing State v. Wortham, 537 P.2d 1117, 1120 (Alaska 1975)).
Simon does not contest the magistrate's findings concerning his criminal history. These findings were sufficient to support the magistrate's conclusion that Simon was a worst offender. The worst offender designation was sufficient to support a maximum sentence for this offense. We conclude that Simon's sentence was not clearly mistaken because he received a sentence that was less than the statutory maximum.
See McClain v. State, 519 P.2d 811, 813-14 (Alaska 1974) (adopting the clearly mistaken test for sentence appeals).
We AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.