Man convicted of animal cruelty loses appeal

MAT-SU — A Willow-area dog breeder responsible for quite possibly the largest animal cruelty case in Mat-Su history lost an appeal of his case.

Frank Rich’s kennel came to light in January 2011. When it was all said and done, the Mat-Su Borough took in 170 dogs, mostly huskies, found emaciated, dehydrated and, in many cases, injured on his property. There were also approximately 20 dead dogs on the property.

“Rich told a trooper he thought approximately six dogs had died; he said they had either starved or frozen to death, Rich explained that he had quit his job and was having a hard time feeding the dogs, and that he prioritizes food for the puppies because he could sell them,” J. Patrick Hanley — an Anchorage District Court Judge filling in on the appeals court — wrote in a ruling handed down Sept. 3.

Rich was eventually charged with 50 counts of animal cruelty. He pleaded guilty to counts and received a sentence of 180 days in jail and 10 years of probation.

Palmer District Court Judge David Zwink ordered, that as part of his probation, Rich, “is not to own, keep, possess, have custody of, or responsibility for any animal.”

In his appeal, Rich made three main points.

First, he argued that the restriction on owning animals was overly harsh.

Second, he argued that 10 years probation was too long.

Third, he argued that he should hat have had to pay all of the $59,040 in restitution he was ordered to pay the borough for caring for his dogs.

On the second point, Hanley ruled that the 10-year term didn’t differ too wildly from other sentences in similar cases.

A very similar one from Kenai involving cruelty to a large number of animals — nine horses, two llamas, 10 cows, 18 sheep, a goat, 34 pigs, 21, dogs, 10 cats, 18 birds and a number of rabbits for a total of more than 130 animals — yielded a 10-year term of probation that was upheld on appeal.

And, Judge Hanley found that Judge Zwink had said that Rich’s conduct was worse than that Kenai case.

Zwink ruled that, “Rich’s conduct was a ‘worst offense’ and Rich had a hoarding problem so severe that Judge Zwink considered it an addiction that hurt others,” Hanley wrote.

As for whether it was too harsh to order Rich not to possess any animals while on probation, Hanley ruled it was not.

“The trial court found that Rich had hoarded dogs, could not care for them, and could not stop himself from accumulating more dogs. This finding is supported by the record and justifies the probation condition that he not own any animals.”

As for the restitution; Hanley deferred to a previous court ruling in that Kenai cruelty case that found that allowing a defendant to subtract charitable donations from the amount he has to pay back.

The amount of money donated to the borough’s shelter was substantial — $121,000 — but the amount the borough chose to ask Rich for in restitution — $59,040 — was based on a $12 per-dog-per-day fee the borough generally charges to house a dog.

The actual amount the borough had to pay was actually probably much higher, since the dogs they took from Rich were sick and starving and needed more care than the generally healthy dogs the borough takes in.

“(Rich) argues he did not cause the Matanuska-Susitna Borough animal shelter any expenses or damages because it received donations covering all of its costs — in fact, he argues, it was enriched by Rich’s crime because it took in more donations than it cost to care for his dogs,” Hanley writes.

The appeals court saw it the opposite way.

“Under such a rule, defendants would, in effect, be enriched by these donations,” he wrote, quoting a previous ruling. “The donations would reduce the amount of the defendant’s unpaid restitution obligation… This result would discourage the community from coming to the aid of a crime victim.”

Contact Andrew Wellner at 352-2270 or andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com.