Even though Andrew Alston will be released nearly five months early, the former UVA student convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing volunteer firefighter Walter Sisk is appealing the terms of his June 21 release.
His release comes with terms for “post-release supervision”—not probation—imposed by the judge when Alston was originally sentenced to three years for slashing and stabbing Sisk 20 times in a drunken altercation near 14th Street on the Corner in November 2003. For three years following his release, Alston must abstain from alcohol, cooperate with mental health and substance-abuse treatments, and either work or pursue educational programs full-time.
Apparently those demands are too much for Alston, whose appeal states that all conditions must be zeroed out.
“What is at issue is really a constitutional question,” says Alston’s lawyer Jane Chittom, a Richmond-based public defender. “In Virginia, the maximum sentence is the jury’s sentence. It is unconstitutional for a judge to add postrelease supervision terms that effectively increase the jury sentence.”
Under a Virginia statute, judges can impose postrelease supervision terms anywhere from six months to three years, says Chittom.
Normal probation occurs when the trial court suspends part of the sentence under set conditions. Alston’s early release has nothing to do with the conditions and is presumably for good behavior. “When we abolished parole, we still built in some limited ‘credit’ that an inmate can get towards their sentence as an incentive to behave,” says David Clementson, spokesman for the Virginia Attorney General’s office. “Given the likelihood that someone with his profile would, in fact, behave, that may explain the ‘early release.’ An inmate now has to serve at least 85 percent of [his or her] sentence, and most end up serving 90 percent.”
But even if his appeal goes through, Alston will still not be done with the judicial system. Howard Sisk, father of the victim, has filed a roughly $3 million civil suit against Andrew Alston. “He will be handed the papers as soon as he walks out [of prison],” says Sisk. “A civil suit is the only option that we had left.”
Sisk’s attorney Bryan Slaughter explains that, while the civil suit has already been filed, it has not been served. “If it was served while Alston was still in prison, then the State would have to pay for a lawyer to defend him. That’s not something we want.”
For the Sisks, the suit represents a legal avenue where they have more control than they did in criminal proceedings, says Slaughter. “Obviously the Sisks were unhappy with what happened in the criminal trial. This is a way they can achieve justice, in some way. Of course nothing can bring their son back.”—Will Goldsmith
