concurring.
The supreme court has cautioned this court to not apply sentencing guidelines too strictly.1 In light of this, our guidelines in *592Jackson2 for determining when a sentence is too lenient appear to me to be suspect. Most of our guidelines are based upon statutory interpretation3 or a careful analysis of former sentencing decisions.4 The lower limit guidelines in Jackson are not based on either-they are uniquely court-created guidelines. Therefore, I am reluctant to join with the majority's continued endorsement of these guidelines.
That having been said, we do have substantial case law that establishes, at least barring an exceptional case, that defendants should spend at least some time in jail for serious felony offenses.5
I respect Judge Card's decision to emphasize Brueggeman's rehabilitation in imposing sentence. But in light of Brueggeman's aggravated perjury offense, the court was required to impose some period of incarceration to reflect the seriousness of the offense. The only exception would be if the court found that this was one of those "truly exceptional cases [where] specific cireumstances might warrant the conclusion that even a relatively brief period of incarceration would substantially jeopardize an offender's prospects for rehabilitation." 6 It does not appear that Judge Card did make or could have made this finding in this case. I accordingly concur in the decision concluding that the sentence imposed was too lenient.
. See State v. Hodari, 996 P.2d 1230 (Alaska 2000); State v. Wentz, 805 P.2d 962 (Alaska 1991).
. 776 P.2d 320, 326-27 (Alaska App.1989).
. See Austin v. State, 627 P.2d 657 (Alaska App.1981).
. See Williams v. State, 809 P.2d 931 (Alaska App.1991); Page v. State, 657 P.2d 850 (Alaska App.1983).
. See State v. Hernandez, 877 P.2d 1309 (Alaska App.1994); State v. Karnos, 696 P.2d 685, 687 (Alaska App.1985).
. Jackson, 776 at 327 n. 5.