STEWART, Judge.
Anthony J. Bright reached a plea agreement with the State and pleaded no contest to one count of second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance. The presumptive sentence for this offense is 5 years' imprisonment. Bright proposed that two statutory mitigating factors from AS 12.55.155(d) applied. Superior Court Judge Michael L. Wolverton rejected the proposed mitigating factors and imposed the presumptive term.
AS 11.71.020(a)(1) (possession of OxyContin with intent to deliver).
AS 12.55.125(c)(1).
Bright argues on appeal that Judge Wolverton erroneously rejected proposed mitigating factor (d)(2), that Bright, "although an accomplice, played only a minor role in the commission of the offense." However, we conclude that Judge Wolverton's findings are not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we affirm Bright's sentence.
Background facts and proceedings
After an investigation by the Anchorage Police Department, the grand jury indicted Bright on four counts of second-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance for four deliveries of OxyContin, a prescription drug containing oxycodone, a schedule IA controlled substance. The parties negotiated a plea agreement that called for Bright to enter a no contest plea to one consolidated count.
AS 11.71.140(b)(1)(N).
The State did not propose any statutory aggravating factors. Bright proposed two statutory mitigating factors, (d)(2) (Bright, although an accomplice, played only a minor role in the commission of the offense) and (d)(14) (Bright's offense involved small quantities of a controlled substance). Judge Wolverton rejected both proposed mitigators and imposed the presumptive term. Bright appeals Judge Wolverton's ruling rejecting mitigator (d)(2).
Discussion
When a defendant challenges the superior court's rejection of a mitigating factor, we must uphold the superior court unless we are convinced the finding is clearly erroneous.
See Lepley v. State, 807 P.2d 1095, 1099 n. 1 (Alaska App. 1991) (a sentencing judge's decisions on the existence of proposed aggravating or mitigating factors are to be affirmed unless they are clearly erroneous).
To prove mitigating factor (d)(2), Bright was obliged to show that "although an accomplice, [he] played only a minor role in the commission of the offense." Although Judge Wolverton recognized that Bright had played a lesser role than his co-defendants, Judge Wolverton found that the overall course of Bright's conduct did not show that Bright had played a minor role.
We conclude that the record supports this finding. The record shows that Bright delivered approximately 20 OxyContin pills over four separate transactions, receiving a total of over $1000. Thus, Judge Wolverton could properly conclude that Bright did not play a minor role in the commission of the offense.
Because Judge Wolverton properly rejected the proposed mitigating factor, we affirm Bright's sentence.
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.