
    Darryl HUFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.
    No. 3740.
    Supreme Court of Alaska.
    Nov. 17, 1978.
    Linda L. Walton, Rice, Hoppner, Hed-land, Fleisher & Ingraham, Fairbanks, for appellant.
    Rhonda F. Butterfield, Asst. Dist. Atty., Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, Av-rum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for ap-pellee.
   OPINION

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Convicted on two counts of the sale of heroin in violation of AS 17.10.010, Huff has now been sentenced to serve four years in prison on both counts, the sentences to run consecutively. The entire sentence on the second count was suspended and Huff was placed on probation for its duration. The sentence is not excessive and is consistent with the mandate of this court in Huff v. State, 568 P.2d 1014 (Alaska 1977), because our order that Huff should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not more than four years did not preclude a suspended sentence for a longer period.

AFFIRMED.

RABINOWITZ, Justice,

dissenting.

The superior court’s sentence is inconsistent with our mandate in Huff v. State, 568 P.2d 1014 (Alaska 1977). There we concluded that Huff should not have been given concurrent sentences of more than four years. After remand from this court, Huff was resentenced to consecutive four year terms with the second four year term suspended subject to Huff’s being placed on probation.

I therefore disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the opinion and mandate in Huff do not preclude imposition of a suspended sentence beyond four years. In my view, Huff contemplated that upon resen-tencing, the superior court was precluded from imposing a sentence exceeding four years. In the past this court has consistently held that in determining whether a sentence is excessive it will consider the total sentence including any period of supervision. 
      
      . Sandvik v. State, 564 P.2d 20, 25 (Alaska 1977); Andrews v. State, 552 P.2d 150, 152 (Alaska 1976).
     