Chapter 4

Alaska § 4:1 § 4:2

Summary of postconviction remedies ~ Alaska . Alaska Statutes §§ 12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska

§ 4:3 § 4:4 § 4:5 § 4:6

Rule of C~al Procedure 35.1 -Summary of changes -Filing -Civil actions . -Unavailable if the .claim was or could have been

raised on direct appeal § 4:7 § 4:8 § 4:9

-Right to counsel ~: .. - -Text of Alaska .Statutes § 18.85~100(c)(~), (2)

§ 4:10

Alaska Statutes-Right to counsel-Text of~~ka Statute§ 18.85.lOO(g)-Postconviction DNA testing

Alaska Statutes§§ 12.72.010 to 12.72.040 and Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1-Right to counsel-Text of Alaska Rule 35.l(e)(l), (2), .(3) .

§ 4:11 - -Case law § 4: 12 --- -Self-representation § 4:13 -Grounds for relief § 4:14 -Postconviction relief limited § 4:15 ~,-Case law § 4:16 -Text of§ 12.72.010 § 4:17 --Case law § 4:18 ·~Text of§ 12.72.020 § 4:19 -'---Case law · § 4:20 -Text of§ 12. 72.025 § 4:21 -Te~ of§ 12.72~030 § 4:22 -Text of §~.12.72.040 § 4:23 -Text of RUie 35.1

: · • .-·

§ 4:24 -Ineffective assistance of counsel-Case law § 4:25 -Summary dispositlon-Case

1

law § 4:26 -Rule 35.l(e)-Case law § 4:27 -Alaska Statutes§ 09.19.010 § 4:28 _;~case law . § 4:29 Writ ·of habeas corpus under Alaska Statutes · · ·

. I §§ 12. 75,010 to 12, 75.230

•·

§ 4:30 -Alaska Rule ·of Civil Proc~dure 86(m)-Text of rule § 4:31 - -Case law § 4:32 -Grounds for relief-Claims regardin:g convicting

court's lack of jurisdiction r.

,t

93

STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§4:33

§4:34

§4:35 § 4:86 §4:37 §4:38

§4:39 I

§4:4o §4:41 §4:42

§4:43 § 4:44 §4:45

- :_claims not involving validity of conviction or sentence

Motions to correct illegal sentence and to reduce or modify sentence under Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35

-Alaska Statutes § 12.55.088 --Text -Case law regarding motion to correct illegal sentence -Case law regarding motion to reduce or modify

sentence · Judicial review of prison disciplinary deciSions ·under

Alaska Statutes § 33.30.295 ' '· · -Text -Case law Motion to correct clerical error under Alaska Rule of

Criminal Procedure 36 · · Writ of error coram nobis Postconvictioii DNA testing statute · Erroneous Convictions Act

'').

.. i

.··'.

[1

- ;. ' . .. . • ~ • , i - 7 ; ;

KeyCite®: Cases and other legal materials lis~ed in KeyCite Scope can be researched through the KeyCit.e service on Westlaw®. Use KeyCite to check citatio~s for. form, parallel references, prior and lat.er history, and comprehen~ sive citator information, including citatiO~s to other decisioJis and secondazy materials.

§ 4:1 Summary of postconviction remedies -in Al~ska . ~ . . . \

Pqncipal postconviction remedy: Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA) (1966

version). This remedy is applied for in the convicting court. The re~edy is an independent civil action, not a postsentencing phase of the original criminal case. The remedy· is statutorily autho­rized; it is also authorized by a judicially promulgated:court rule. There is no custody requirement in· Alaska UPCPA ~proceedings. Newly discovered :evidence of innocence is a ground· for relief under the Alaska UPCPA. · · .'-

Right to counsel: . . . , \ ; There is both a state constitutional and a statutory right to

counsel in Alaska UPCPA ·proceedings~ J\'1ore.over,, there is a state constitutional right to the effective ·assistance of ·counsel on the petitioner's. first application for postconviction; relief~ ·

Statute of limitations: , . I • ·-· ·• • '..' ''·. 1-.. . .

Where the· claim relates to a conviction,_ two years . after entry

94

ALAsKA · .. .. i .:§ 4:2

of the judgment of conviction; but if the ·conviction was appealed, one year after the court's :decision is :final under'Alaska appellate rules .. · . , • · ·: i .: · • • · . ~: \ , · ., . ·

. . . . : ; . ~ .

· Secondary: po"t~onvict~qn r~rn~dil's: : J

. Habeas corpus · ·. · .. · . Motion to correct illegal ;sentehce · · ·' Motion. to 'reduce qr inodify sentence . · · · · . : .

. . ~ta~ut~fil,~ autlwri~eci judi¢i~. re~e~ of prison. dis~~iinar)r .~e:. ClSlons i ''· :' ., I .... ,·; ... :·ii. ' .

. Motion to ~orrect clerical. error .

Other remedies: ' , '. . '' ' ( : .. :

Coram nobis has never been recognized as a postconviction remedy in Alaska. . ·· ·

- - ~--· ._\ ' .. -• _ ... ~ . - .

Alaska enao.ted· the :Rost"\Conviction ON.A Tes-ting~ PrQcedures effective July 1, 2010. Alaska Stat. §§ 12.73.010 to 12.73.090.

Alaska does not have an .erroneous convictions .act. . . . · , · : ., • ' • , ' o , I I , ,' • • t t .:. ; , 0' I • , •

0 , '# ~ . I O , ~ -~,:' ~ !

Helpful Reading: ·· · Y ' : , .; '

'.:. '.Note:' More "than Just· it,' Priva~e . Affair: ls the Practi~e of .Iri~arcerating Alaska ·Pris«>ners in Priv~te· Qut~of-~tate '_Prisons Unconatittitfonal?,·17·-Alaska L~·Rev:-3191.(2000). · .... · ·. ·

• ~ # • • ; : ' I t. ~,, -~

§ '4:2·· Alaska 'Statutes- §§.12. 72.010· to ·l.2. 72.040 ·and Alaska · :. · Rille'ofCrimitu1li~Procedure 35.1 ·:; · ·- .- · ·~ .. ::J

, ; ~ . I ' . ' .,. . ~ ~ : . • ! !'J_ ;· ~ ~ • ~ ; l . , • . , ~ ~ : : ~--~ ' .~·l · :: : ) I ···j Siµce: September 196a th~.prbic~p~tp9st~opviction -re~edy in Al~ka.has been the 1.96Etv.:ersion of the UPCPA, ,which i~ also a remedy in the natU:19e Qf ,c.QrEl.Ill nobis .. ;8~~ Grinol~· v. State, 10 ~ .. 3.d.6QO (Alask~.Ct. Appo;.120.00),.de~cjsion ·aff.(l;.in, p~, ·74 P.3d e89 (Alaska 2003). I' .. '; : ·::_, ) ·- '. " .-.. , •

; Between 1968,and 1987.the Alaska UROPA.was .authorized by a~ previous· version1 af Rule 35;: Alaska- , R; Crim~· Proc.: Between 1987 and 1995. the 1966~version of the UPCPA was)authorized in Alaska by a preVious version.:of·Rwe 35.1, Alaska R. Crim. Proc., adopted by the. Alaska Supreme Court·on Apr~· 22,'. ·1987~·:and ,ef­fective Aug. 1, 1987. The; .cun;ent. version of Rwe 35~-1 .was most recently amended by. a·iSept.= 14~.i 2006 ;order .. of the <Alaska Supreme Court which became. effectiye .on Api;., 16,· 200'.1. =

· ·At .present; tlie, principal· postconrviction i remedy in. Alaska, : the UPC PA, is authorized by· the joint operation· of (1'). Chapter 72 of Title. 12 of the Alaska Statutes, and:~(~) ~ul~1:3.5.1·; Alaska R. Crim:. Proc. The remedy re;rnain.s. the. :1966 UPCPA, but with drasti~ change~ 1making it m~ch· more ·difficult tor obtain' relief .

. 95

§ 4:2 STATE PosTcONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

See Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App.:2000),.decision . aft'd in part, 7 4- P..3d 889 (Alaska 2003). . · ' .

A final judgment of a superior court granting or denying post­conviction relief under Chapter 72 of Title 12 of the Alaska Statutes and Rule 35.1,.Alaska R. Crim.;Proc.;· is ~appealable to the Alaska Court of Appeals. Holden v. State, .190 P .3d 725 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) (Court of ~ppeals has subject-matter juris­diction to decide appeals th~t rai~e issues that might be viewed as. "civil," so long as the issues arise . from the· types .of litig~tion listed in the statute giving the Coo.rt .of Appeals subject-matter jurisdiction over appeals in all action~ and proceedings com­m~nced· in the Superior Court that involve· criminal prosecution, pdstconviction relief, juvenile delinquency, extr~di~ion, habeas cotpus, probation, parole, or bail). . ·' . .

§ is . Alaska Statutes §§ 12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 Bnd Alaska : ·; · ·: - Rule of Criminal Procedure· 35.'l--Summary of

1 -changes· ·.' ·t · : · · . "· · ·

· The limitations added to the Alaska UPCPA by the: 1995 stat-ute include the following: ;

• • ._& •• ·'--

(1) There is now a statute of limitations on· applications for postconviction relief. Where the Claim. relates to a· convic­tion, the ap'plication .for :postcoriviction relief lllUSt be filed within two years after entry of the judgment of conviction;

! . but.,_ if the, convictio1:1 '\Y~S appe~le~,. tAe applic~~io:q. -~ust be filed within one year after the court's ·decision is fulal under Alaska appellate rules. If the diim relates to a probation

· · ·revocation, the application must be ·filed Within·two·years ;.~. :· ofthe·revocatfon, or~ ifthe·revocation was appealed, Within

1 one year after the court's decision is "final under Alaska ap-

1 · . pellate rules. If a final administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections is beiri.g col:. laterally attacked, the claim must be filed Within one·year

· of the decision. There are several exceptions· to -these time ·, : ·· limitations, and· there are no· limits on applications claim­

'. ing that the sentence is illegaLr> · : (2): ·The· "application for postconviction relief may not raise· a

claim '-involving the admission or~ excliision of evidence at I • trial, or a claim thfJ.t the sentence is· excessive, 'i.e., within

statutOry limits but too harsh:: . · · · · 1·(3) ·Only one application for,reliefunder th~ Alaska UPCPA by

·.1 · , the same' person is now permitted. · •

1

(4)' A1person applying for. postconviction relief now must prove all factual assertions by : clear and convincing evidence. (Alaska is one of only three states where a person applying

96

\

ALAsKA §·4:7

for relief·pursuant to .the state~s principal:pos.tconviction remedy must prove his or her case by clear aand convincing evidence, as opposed to proof by a preponderance of the evidenc~~ The. othe)! states. requiring proof by clear ~nd convin,ciµg evidence are T~np.essee. and Wisconsin~). : . . , .

§ 4:4 Alaska Statutes§§ 12.72.010 tq 12~72~040.~ci·~a~~: Rule~f.Cr~al ProcedJlre:.35!'1--Filing.

Under Alaska Stat. § 12. 72.030, the application· for .postcon\ric­tion relief "shall be filed with the clerk at the court location where the.:underlyifig criminal case is·filed. Thus, if1the conViction'was ~btai~ed in·· the· sup¢rior court, the" pe~itiofr for .postconviction relief is filed in that court. See, e.g~, James v .. State; 84 ·P.3d 404 (Alaska 2004). If the conviction occurred in the district court, the postconviction petition is filed in the distri~t court. Alaska Stat. § 22.15.06Q(li)(2)~" . : ·;, . . . . '. , .. '. ; . ' ...

Pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 12. 72.040, ·the applicant for postcon­viction relief "must ·prove all factual assertions by clear and convin~ng evidence." · · : ' · · :

,•;

:

§ 4:5 Alaska Statutes.§§·12.72~010 to 12.72.040."and,Aiaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1-Civll actj.ons,

Traditionally, .proceedings under Alaska's. UPCPA have been de~med civil actions; separate from the criminal case resulting in the conviction. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 1148, 155 L. Ed. 2~ 164 (2003). . ,

Because Alaska UPCPA proceedings are treated ; as civil in nature, either party may appeal an, adverse final judgment under Alaska's UPCPA. The appeal is to the Alaska Court of Appeals. Alaska Stat. ~ 22.07.020(a)(2), (c).

§ 4:6 Alaska :statutes:§§ 12. 72.010 to .12.72.040· and Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1-Unavailable if the claim was or could have been raised on direct appeal · · · ·

Generally, relief under the Alaska UPCPA is unavailable if the claim was or could. have. been raised on direct appeal. of the convic­tion, or if the claim was decided on the merits on direct appeal or in any p~eviQus proceeding. · . ·

§. 4:7 Alaska ·stahites §§ 12 •. 72.010 to 12.72.040 and Alaska . Rule of Criniinal. Pro~edtire 35.1-Rig1'.t tO co~sel . Under the due process clause of the state. constitution, an indigent ·applying for relief pursuant to .Alaska's 'principal post-

97

§ 4:'7 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

conviction· r.emedy ~is entitled not· 'only to appointed· counsel, but also 'to: the effective . assistance 'Of counsel on. the' first application for lpostconViction· relief.'. . . ··.: · ·

:An indig~n'.t person applying for·relief·under Alaska!s principal po~tconviction ·'remedy also· ·has· ·a sta.tutoey 'right· to• appointed counsel under both Alaska Stat. § 18.85.lOO(c)(l), (2), and Rule 35Jl(e}(2)/Afttsk~:~;<Jrim·. Proc;·An·indigen~ per~on;s.eeking post­conviction DNA· testing ·also has a. right~to ·appointed counsel under.18.85.1.00(g). : , .' . . . .

••.. ·-· i... • ., ! ·. •' ' • ,,

'. . ' ' ; ' - •. ~- ~ "" . i ; . .i ..... , ! . ' I ' I : f ! : ' ' 'A • \ 1 ; • I • • • • ' ~ I • ~ • : ' :

§ 4:8 i Al~ska St~~q~e,, §§ l~it.7~.o~o to i~ .. 7~ •• 040 ~d Al~ka . . ~: .. ; .. R~e. of C~~al }>ro~edure 35.l~Right· to· . . . · ·

J

1

• • • cotµ)sel~TextQf ~as~ siatu~~s § 1t;1~~5;100,(c).~~>, (2) ~aska Stat~·§:18.85.100(c)(l), (2) provide·s:. ·· · .:· .~ 1

:'· · · •...•.

. .f (er An. incllge~t' person. is entitlecf \t~ representl:itidii' urider' (a) and . ·. (b) of this section for purposes of bringing a timely 'applicaticin for · postconviction relief under AS. 12. 72~ An indigent person is· not

. '.~nt~tle~ to repr~seiitation wid.er (fl) and :Cb): ot ,this:,s~ction for purposes of bringing (1) an untimely or successive applicatiqn;. ·~or postconviction relief under AS 12.72 or an untiniely or successive motiop. f?~ ,~~dµ~ti?~ or. modifif P..ti.on. of sen~nce;. [or]. (2L,a P.eti~n ~or review: or certioran from an appellate court ~lmg on ·'an ap:· plication for ·postconviction:- relief[.]" • ' r,, • ~ <'f ~ I ''c

§· f :9 ·Alaska· Statute-Right ·to counsel--Text •of Alaska . Statute § 18.86.lOO(g)-Postconviction:_ DN~·testing .. '

, · Ala8ka Stat. § 18.85.lOO(g} provides: ,. '.· " ·. :·, · · I (g) An indigent person is entitled to 'representatibiJ. under

: ·: {a). and (b) .of this section for purposes ·of bringing an :arpplfoa- · tion for post~conv,iction DNA testj~g· under A812/13~ ... ·, · ..

. . ·

t •. : ~ \ ~ • • I ' : ! • ~- • r

§ 4:10 Alaska Statutes §§ 12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska · ~ ~ Rule. of ·Criminal Procedure 35.1...,..Rigbt to . , .... : , :

: ·counsel~Text of Alaska) Rule .35.l(e)(l)., ,~2}, (3)

As arifended;. Rule 35.1(~'(1~;-~(2)~ ·Alaskif :R: edih-. Proc. provides: ··· '· · ,:

(e}i·Indigent Applicant.· •! "' . : : ;, ~ i L· , 1 • . : · , 1

·.·· ·(l)i If the applicant is indjgent~:·filing,fees·sh~ll' be:paid under the·provisions of AS 09:19 and counsel·shaH·jbe ap~ pointed .consistent with AS 18.85.100 to assist th~· applicant.

. (~) .. ~i~~n 60 days 9f :a~ ~tto;rp~~s .appoin~~ep.t o~ be;h.alf . of an inaigent applicant,- tne attorney· sliall fµe. with the court '. · and serve on the progecuting attOrney. ~.· 'J ·· " ~ i.:: ~ t ::: · ·

, . , .··'(A~, a· statement that the· litigation. will .. proceed'C>n lthe ! • · :claims·allegedin the applicat~on.filed1by ~)le ... applicant;,br· I I

~8

I ALAsKA § 4:11

(B) .an amended.application for postconviction relief; or·,! '(C) a certificate that the-attorney ·· ·· (i). ·does ·not hav~.~ ~pD.filct of inter~st; . . , . . · .. . . ·(ii) has feview~d ·th~· fa~t~. of. the · ~~deri:Yi~g .. pr~·~eed~

. ing or.· act~on .ch8.Ilenged ·in the .application, ·anq the pertinent law; . , .: . ·.; "~,; . '·

1

.'' , " r'. : . , ; .. , . I · £.: , ~ (iii) ·has consulted with the applicant and, if appropri-

ate, with~ trial counsel;. and: . . · .. · ; . '., . (iv) ~ha·s -deterinined··that;the claims· presented in the

application have ~no arguable m~rit· ahd·that the ap­~:u:ft :~as .no. other: coloraple cl~s fo~- .postqqn~Gt!on

• - J • . • ' . . ~ .•

(3) The~,certificate described in subparagraph (e)(2)(C) shall include a full description of

(A) .. the .claiins the"attorney has considered; · .. · , '(B)- the materials the··attbrney·has·review~d; ~~

(C) the investigations the attorney has condu~ted; and ·(DJ thereasons why the attorney has concluded·~at all

·of the applicant's potentialclaunsihave· no ·arguable merit . . ' . . ' . :: . . . \. ~ . .

IL " .

§ 4:11 Alaska Statutes §§12.72.010 to 12.72~040 and Alaska Rule of CriminBI Procedure 35.1-Right to. · counsel-C.ase .law ; ; ,. : .. r

··For case law on the right.to· ~ounsel~·see e.g., Maness~. Gordon, 325 P.3d 522 (Alaska 2014) (an indigent criminal: 'defendant .has a constitutional right to ,court-appointed counsel; that right extends to postconviction proceedings); Storie v. State, .255 P.3d 979 (Alaska· 2bll).(petitj.on under Rtile 215(a)(5) is a 'defendant's first chalice to· ·have an appellate court· aJ»~ss. upon" the , superior court's sentence, and therefore review of that· petition is first-tier appellate review to which petitioner has the right to counsel;· ~an attorney who refuses ,to file a· petition for. review at the· client's request essentially denies. that client the assistance of counsel .for the· client's firt:;t-tier appellate 'procedure); Hertz v. State·, 20.09 WL 7927.79 (Alaska Ct.: App. 2009) (an applicant for.postconvic­tion relief generally :is ·not· entitled to app,ointed counsel for an untimely .or successive. application}; Holden v~ State, 172 P.3d "Slq (Alaska Ct.· App. 2007). (an indigent defendant pursuing. a, first petitiQn for postconviction relief is entitled to the assistance of counsel for the. purpose of assessii)g (and.-arguing),.whethel!,the petition is timely); One .v .. .Stat~, .127·.p.ad. 853 (Alaska .Ct. App. 2006) (when ·an ,attorney is appQinted to. repres~nt. an indigent petitione~ for postconyiction relief; the attorney has 60 .days to ·do

;99

§'4:11 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND .RELIEF

one of three things: (1) inform the superior court that the at­torney will proceed on the grounds for relief already stated by the petitioner, (2) file an amended ,petition for .Postconviction relief, or1 (3) file a certificate attesting that the attorney has investigated t~e facts of the case an4 the applicable law, and th~t the. at­torney has ·concluded that· the petitioner has no ·arguable, i.e., nonftivolous, claims for postconyiction relief. · ·

t

' I

§ 4:12 Alaska Statutes§§ 12.72.0lO:to· 12.72.040 and Alaska Rule of Criminal.Procedure 35.l,....Right to counsel-Self-representation

iin·Aiaska, defendants enjoy a state·constitutional right to rep­resent themselves in state postconviction relief proceedings. 11amptpn v. Huston, 653 P.2d 1058 (Alaska Ct. App. 1982).

! • .

§ 4:13 Alaska Statutes §§ 12. 72.010 to 12.72.040 and Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1-Grounds for relief · . · ·

Chapter 72 of .Title 12 of the Ala$ka St_atutes, entitled "Post­Con~cti9n Relief.Procedur~s . .for Persons Convicted of Criminal Offenses," encompasses Alaska Stat. §§ 12.72.010 through 12.72.040. : ·Alaska Stat. · § 12. 72.010 ·specifically· lists the following as

grounds for postconviction ·relief: (1) "after the imposition of sentence, the applicant seeks to withdraw a plea· of guilty or nolo qon~endere in order to corre~t manifest injustice under the Alaska Rules of Crimmal ProcedUI'.~," ~d .(2) "the applican~ was not af­forded effective assistance of counsel at· tri~l or on dire~t appeal."

§ 4:~4 Alaska Statutes §§ i2. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska Rule of Crhllinal Procednre · 35.1-Postconviction

,· relief lbitited ·

Alaska Stat. § 12. 72.020 •limits the availability of postconvic­tion relief in a number of ways. First, a claim ·"based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial or on the ·ground that the sentence is excessive" is not a ground for postconviction relief~ Second, relief cannot be granted :based upon a claim that "was," or could have been but was not~ raised in a direct appeal· from the proceeding that resulted in the conviction." Third, subject to ,certain exceptions, relief cannot be granted· unless the applica­tion for postconviction relief is filed within the applicable time limitations period. Fourth, postconviction relief cannot be granted if the claim was decided on the merits or on procedural grounds in any previous proceeding. Fifth,. postconviction relief ·cannot be granted if a previous' application for ·postconviction·: relief has

ALAsiCA . § 4:15

been filed by the same person under Chapter 72 or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedilre.

The 2008 amendment o( § 12. 72.20 · effectively am.ends· Rule 35.1, Alaska Rul~s of Criminal Procedure, by restricting 'the authority of a c_ourt to hear certairi applications, cJaims, or proceedings . for postconviction relief and by prescribin.g a proc~­dfire for a court tO idete~ne i~ an application, claim, or proceed-ing may be considered.' . ' . . ' ' ' .

In 2007, Alaska Stat. § 12. 72.25 was added. This section requires an application for postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance by. tlie applicant's attorney, provided in a prior application under AS.12.72.010 or the Alaska Rules of Crim­inal Procedure, must be brought withi~ one year after the court's decision on the prior application 'is final. .This sectfon applies to offenses committed before, on, or after July 1, 2007. A ·person whose application for postconviction relief was denied. before this date had until July 1, 2008, to file a claim. Section 12.72~25 ef­fectively amends Rule 35.1, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, by restricting the authority of a court to hear- certain applica­tions, claims, or proceedings for postconviction. relief and by prescribing a procedtire for a c9urt to. determine if an application, claim, or proceeding may be considered.

§ 4:15 Alaska Statutes §§ 12~ 72.010 to 12. 72.040. and Alaska Rule of Crfutlnal Prciced1ire 35~1-Postconviction relief limited-Case law · . ·

For case law on limitation of postconviction relief, see e.g., Lindeman v. State, 244P.3d.1151 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011) (DNA test results of blood from the ·crime .scene were not new· evidence that entitied defendant to new trial following murder conviction, as such test-.results were based on evidence that was· available at trial; defendant who seeks postconviction relief based on ·newly discovered evidence must meet the same burden as a defendant who brings a motion for a new trial on the same. grot?-nd; the defendant must show that the proposed.new evidence is newly discovered and would probably produce. an acquittal); Wilson v. State, 244 P.3d 535 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010) (court was required to conside:r opinion from attorney experienced in defend~nt criminal cases, which was filed by defendant in support :of his application for postconviction relief, in deciding whether to. dismiss· applica­tion or give defendant an opportunity to remedy' any deficiency before ruling, though opinion was set out in a letter rather than an affidavit, where state never raised any objection in· the trial court to the fact that the· opinion was not submitted. in affidavit form); Lewis v. State, 2009 WL 1140456 (Alaska Ct. App~ 2009)

101

§ 4:16 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(Rule 35.l(a)(l) .allows a pet?~on. to bring. a proceeding for ·p·ostcon­viction relief on the basis that the, convictjon .or the sentence -:was in violation of the.constitution of.the United.States or the consti-tu~qn,: or. :lfl":s' ~r Alask~; an ~f: t!1e ~oregq~µg' c~~s ·-~~lege that L~vy1s~s convic~1on or ~e.nt~~~~ violated ~he · C~nstitµt~on .. Qf t~e Umt~d _St~tes or the .C9l;l~titution o~ laws o.(.th~1 State, .. of .Af.aska; th)is~ .all o~ the cJairiis that Lewi~ ~a~~ed t\); pur~ue. ~n ~s petit~<?P fo~ a writ of habeas corpus could have been; l;>r9J.1.ght in an ap-p~c~tion ~[. posre.p~vict~o~. reU~~· . :· ' r. ·, • ; • • • \. • • I I

§ ~:16 .Alttska Statutes ·§§'12.72.0iO to 12.72.040 and~Alaska RUie of Criminal J>roc~d~e a&.1.;....Text"of 'I· •. ' ; •

§ t2. 72.010 . . .. ; . . '. : : . '.. . '

~ .

1

§_ 1~. 72.01().. Scope or' p~~-t-~o~vi~tipn :r,elie( I • • ',. ., . ,

1 A person:who has.been convictE!d of,. or sentenced for, a .. crime . -may institut~. ;a _proceeding. for post-convi~tion J,"~lief .if. the

;person ~laims , , . · ... .-; · -, · (1) -that the conviction or -the sentence was in ·violation of I · the constitution of the United States ."or the, c.onstitution ·or

· d 1 laws of this state;· , · · · " •. , · . , , · · ,, · (2) that the court was witho~t jurisdiction· to· impose

sentence; -. J3) that.a prior con~ction has been set ~side.and.the.prior

· ·· · cb~victio1:1~~as used. as 'a statutorily ·required .enhancement of the sentence' imposed;· .·JI • . •• · •

(4) that there exists evidence of materiaI facts, not previ­ously :presented and heard by the court, that requires vaca-

{ ~ . tion of. the conviction' or sentence in the . interest of justice;' if , the person seeks post-conviction DNA testing to -support· a

,.~ ···'claim: under this paragraph, the personls·exclusiv~ ·method '! . 'for:obtaining that testing is· an;applicatfon under Alaska . Stat§ 12.73; . : . · , ; :'.~>·

· · ('5) that the person's sentence lias expir~d, 'c>r 'the· ·person's probatfori, parole, or conditional release· h~s been U.nlawfully r~vo_ked, or -the· perso:p. is· otherwise" unlawflilly' held ip 'custody or other restraint; ' ' . . . . . . ' . ' ' -. . ...

!) . ' : : (~) :tl?-at tpe co~Viction' or sen.ten~~ iS1}~the~se ~~pj~ctto .. ,c9,lla~r~ attack upon any_grol.m.d .or alleged errqt pr~_vio_usly

•

1

• · . av~l~W~ ~der th~ coriinion' law, statu~cy law, or o~~~t wtj.t, motion, ·petiti~n, procee4ffig, qr remedy; .

1•· . · .•

• • :;' (7), .~tJlat" I : ! J • ' • ' ' , l • ' • . . • • I ; , •

i '. · J ·, i (A) . there: has been a: significant ·change in l_aw, ;W:hether .. '.,. ;.; ·substantive or procedural,. applied in the process-leading to ~··: , .. thec:·person's-convictiol). or. sentence; _. . ,. , . i •

. 102

ALAsKA ' ', ,. ) j ',' ' ' I ' § 4:1!7

-(B) the change in . the .law· was not reasonably foresee .. able by a judge :or '.a.competent. attqrney; : , . . . , , '. , ; !

(C) it is· appropriate to retroactively apply .the.change in law· because the change requires observance qf procedures without which 'the likelihood of,an accurate.conviction is seriously diminished; and . · · (D) ~the failure· to. retroactively apply the change in ·law

; "would result in .a fundamental miscarriage o.f justice, which is established· by demonstrating that, had. the changed law ·been fr~ effect at:the:tim.e:of the applicant~s trial, a reasoll:­able trier of fact would have a reasona,ble. doubt as to the guilt of the applicant; ~: · · · . ·1 •. : ·h.· (8) · that· after the imposition of sente:nce; the applicant

seeks to withdraw a -plea· of guilty or nolo coritendere in order to:correot manifest injustice under :the Alaska ·Rules of Crim-inal Procedure; -or , : j • • ·'. t: · : · · ~· . · :--·

(~) . that the. applicant wa~ not affor~ed _effective assistanc~ of couns'el at trial or. on 'direct appeal~ . • . . ! ' • I I . !

• ' •, :' ; I I ; 0 - : •/

§ 4:17 Alaska Statut~s §§)2. 12.010 to ,1~.72.040 · ~D.d Alaskll . Rule o,Crimlnal.Proc~ure 35.l~T~xt,of · . . [ '. § i2.72.0l~Ca•e ~a,v ;. : ..

For case law on Section 12.72.01'0; see1 e.g., Cook v.- State~ 312 P.3d 1072 (Alaska 2013),, cert~ q.~ni~d, 134 S. Ct .. 2146, 188 .L .. Ed. 2d ·1133 (2014) {criminal defendant has a righfunder ·the Sixth Amendment to· the United States Cohstitutfon and· article I, sec­tion 11 of the Alaska Constitution to counsel of- his choice; this right is not absolute; . defe.ndant. has no right to. insist :.on -repre­sentation by an attorney that he cannot:afiord; nor does he have a ·right. to spend assets .thitt h~v.~ ~een l~~lly ,se~ze~ orJrozen in a separate proceeding, even if tll:q~e-asse~s.Eµ"e.neces~aey to r~~ain the attorney of his choice;. the ~ssential aim of the S;btth Amend- . . ment is to guarantee an ~ff~c#ye a~a:v~cate; fol;. ea~h. criminal defendant rather' than to en8ure that a' aefendaht Will inexorably be represented by the lawyer .whom he prefers; appel)Eits deter­mination in civil case stemming from murder· th'at 'trial· court improperly refused to set aside default judgment entered .. against defendant did not constitute a .new fact that ·required .vacation of subsequent criminal· conviction resulting· from, same· murder in the interest of justice); District Attorney's Office for. Third Judicial Dist. v:. OS.bornf!, 557U.S.·52,·l29.S:.0t.-2308;.174) L.,Ed. 2d 38 (2009) (Alaska law governing· procedures_ for ;postc.onviction relief were· not .inconsistent with traditjonal principles of justice or any recognized principle of fundamental .fairne·ss, and .thus, did not violate the due proce$s righ~s. of a prisoµ~r; :who w~s. seeking ac-

103

§4:17 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

cess to· certain. evidence for DNA testing; Alaska· law provided a substantive right to be.released on a.sufficiently compelling show­ing of new evidence that established actual innocence, provided for discovery in postconviction ·proceedings, and specified that s~ch discovery was available to those seeking access to DNA evi­dence); Wooley v. State, 221 P.3d 12 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (ap­p~opriate postconviction. remedy to be pursued by defendant, who had pled guilty to felony second-degree theft Uµder inapplicable cdreer offender statute, was for defendant: to seek rescission of plea agreement,· not. reduction of his ·felony theft conviction to iriisdemeanor theft; defendant was not entitled to claim benefit of portions of agreement he liked while mounting attack on portipns of.agr~ement he did not like); Hertz v. State, 81. P.3d 1011 (Alaska C:t. App .. 2004) ·(petitioner filed an application for postconviction r~lief in which he claimed that the Department of Correc~ions failed to provide him with the proper equipment to draft plead­ings and "1-th the proper µiedical and dental care; Alaska Stat. § 112.7L010, the postconviction relief statute, provides for post­conviction relief in matters affecting a defendant's conviction and sentence; the statute does not discuss conditions of .incarceration or prison disciplinary matters as within the scope of a postconvic­tion relief action; it therefore· does not appear to us that the post­conviction relief statute is intended to·apply to·the matters that .the postconviction petitioner r.aises).

§ 4:18 Alaska Statutes §§ ·12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska RUie of Criminal Procedure 35.1-Text :of § 12. 72.020 . .

: Sec. 12. 72.020. Limitations ·on applications for postcon-. · viction relief. ·

1 ' (a) A ciaim may not be brought under AS 12. 72.010 or the

~ Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure if .

(104

(1) the clajm is based· Oil; th~ ~dmission or exclusion of evi­dence at ~rial or .on .the ground_ that the sentence is excessive; . · (2). the claim was, or could have been but was not, raised in· a direct appeal from ~he proceedfog that resulted ·in the

. conviction; . . . · (3) the later of the following dates has passed, except that

if .the applicant claims. that the sentence was illegal there is ~ no time limit. on the claim: . ·

· (A) if the· claim relates to. a· conviction, 18 months after · the entry of the judgrrient of the conviction or, if the convic­tion was appealed, one year after the court's· decision is ·final under the Alaska· Rules of Appellate Procedure; .

(B) if the claim relates· to a court revocation of proba-

ALA.sKA § 4:18

tion, 18 months after the entry of the court 1order revoking probation or, if the order revoking probation was appealed, one year after the court's decision is final under the Alaska Rul~s of ~ppellate Procedure; . . (4) one year or more.has elapsed 'from the final administra­

tive decision ·of the Board of Parole . or the, Department of Con:ections tha~ is being collat~raliy a~tacked; .

(5) the claim was decided· on its merits. ~or on procedural grounds in any previous proceeding; or

( 6) a previous applicfition· for postconviction relief has been filed u_µ.de;r this chapte~, or under the Ala~ka Rules of .Crimi-nal Proc~ure. . · . . · (b) Notwithstanding (a)(3) and (4) of this section, a· court

may hear a claim · (1) ifthe applicant establishes. due diligence in. presenting

the claim and sets out .facts supported by· admissible evi­dence establishing that the applicant

(A) suffered from a physical disability or from a mental disease or defect that precluded the timely assertion of the claim; or · · .

(B) was physically prevented by an ageQ.t of the st~te from filing a .timely cl~; · (2) based on newly discovered evidence if the applicant

establishes due diligence in presenting the claim and sets out fa:cts supported by evidence that is admissible and .

(A) was not kllown within · . ' , (i) 18 months after entry of the judgment of conviction

· ·if the ~laim relates to. a conviction; · · · · (ii) 18 mpnths after· entry of a. court order;. re~old~g

probation if. ~~e. claim. relates to a court's. revocation of probation; or

(iii) one year after· an administrative decision. of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections is final if the claim relates to the administrative. decision;. · · (B) is not cumulative. to the evidence presented" at trial; (C) is not' impeachment evidence; and · ' · . · · CD)' est~biishes. by .clE~ar ~nd c~nvinci~g;.~~ideiic~ that

the applicant is innocent~ . . . · · (c) Notwithstanding (a)(6)'.of this section, a court may hear,~

claim based on· a, final administrative. decision of the Board. of , Parole or th~: Department of CorrectiQns if . · · · . . '., .

. (1) the claim was not and could not have 1been challenged

105

§ 4:18 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

i ·in a previous application. for postconviction· relief filed under : J. thi& -chapter .. or· under the Alaska Rules of: Criminal Proce-. ii rdure;1and .. ~ ,. . '; ·~

(2) a previous application for'·postconviction relief relating i • to the ·admihistrative decision has not been filed· under this 1 chapter:or under the Alaska Rules of-Criminal Procedure. ' (d) The court may.not consider a substantive clainf-in an ap­plication brought; under AS 12. 72.010 or· the·Alas~a Rules of Criminal Procedure until·the ·court has first ,determined that

· , · (1) the application is:timely; and· ·, ·" ..

I

·{2) except for ·an .. application described in AS· 12~72 .. 025 or allowed under (c) of this section, no previous: applicatibn has been ,filed. · .. '. 1 J .1: , • · •. '. · ~- '

• ,· f J -,.

§ 4:19 ·Alaska Statutes§§ 12.72.010 tol2.72.040 and Alaska · · ·Rule of Criminal Procedure :85.1-Text ·of . : ·

§ 12. 72.020-Case law ·

·:For cas~ law ·on the AS 12.72~0·20; see e.g~; Osborne v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 332 P.3d 1286 (Alaska· 2014f (unaer AS 22.10.020(d) the superior court has appellate jurisclictfoli in all niatters' appealed to it from an; administrative agency:when ap­peal is provided by law; because: no ·statute provides for ·appeal from: DOC· administrative decisions,. the -superior court· does not have !jurisdiction to review· such· appeals; ·one :exception. to this 111le: an. administrative appeal- from a DOC .determination: is ap­propriate where there is (1) an alleged violation of a fundamental constitutional right .in (2) an adjudicative proceeding that (3) pro­duces ·a record capable of appellate .r~view; ~h~ ·ti.i¢tations on ap­plications for post-conviction relief set out ih AS 12~72~020(a) do not"bar·claims alleging sentence miscalctil~tion)t Xavier v. State, 278 P.Sd 902 (Alaska ·Ct.:App .. ~2012) (for pUrposes·of:'due process analysis of application of statute of limitations"'for: iiling of ap­plications: .for post~conviction! relief: ·first-time applicant for relief, applicant· faced no· insurmountable barrier affebting his access to the courts;-'. ;applicant~s- claim of ineffective assistance, of counsel arose at time he was convicted. and senten~ecl, and· applicant had 10 years to file timely post.-.~o~v~ction relief. application before ~tatute of.limitations was ~riacted·, .as.well as tWo'years, following enactment;' risk _.of 'wrongftll. :convictio'~ thrtjugh' proced\ires used was ~inimal, where applicant did riot allege any circU:mstances that preventedihim,, from discovering or pursuing his claim of irielfective.iassistance ·of counsel;· applicant did riot Etllege that __ he was. prevented from bringing his claim by· disabilitji or· by· agent (>f:the state, that he mistakenJy attempted;to pursue his claim in

l06

I

I AliAs:KA· § 4:19

another forum1;or that.he was.'prevented\,from.filing timely post­'conviction .application by any:.other .extraordinary· circumstan~s); Cleveland v .. :State, 24liP.3d 504 (Alaska. Ct.· App.·2010), as aµiended o.n reh'g, (Oqt. 29-, 20~0) (filil;tg ·of ,a motion to: corrept. il":" legal s,en~~nce does nqt toU statute of limitatio~ for ~ng, an· ap­p~catfon ,for pos~coD;vi9tiOil. relief;. ~rial_ co~'s f~lure to apply .eq'." u1table tolling to .def~ndant.'s 1 untimely. application for PQ~~con~~tion relief wa.s, not plain ·etj.-9.~;. ~hepcy o.f equita:bl~ ·to~l:­ing -had never previously, bee~.accepted by, ~:P:e Alask~ courts; and defep.dAnt a~~e~d ino .~xtraordiziary ,',circµmstance~ ·.that pre­ye11ted· him from filing during t~e statutory· period;. statute of lirii­it~tiC?ns baf#ng defend~J;it's. untiajely applicatiorffor pos.tco'nvic~ tion. relief did I hot plainly 'burden :Ills right of access to t~e \ cqtµ"ts hi·Violation of due process; defen~arit·had· all the 'information:he needed tO raise postconvictibh claims in a timely application); Newby' v~ State, ·2010 WL ·3273502 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010) )(stat­ute' of limitations for postconvic~iori relief aP.pli~ations is subj~ct to an exception for newly discovered evidence;· to· rely on this exception· an applicant rilust prove: (1} that the evidence is newly discovered as :defined :by the rule, (2) that it·is not merely cumula­tive or impeachment evidence, arid. (3) that· the application "establish~s· by .clear . and, conVincing evidence that' the applicant is innocent"); Poirot v. State, Dept. ofAdmin., Div. of Motor Vehicles, 2009 ·WL 564704. (Alaska 2009) ,(AS. 12/Z2.020(a).(3){A) provides criminal defendant may~ not bring claim. for ·postconviction ·relief related·.to _his conviction (:qiore. th~n .. eighteen ,mo~ths ~er eQ.try of judgment or one year ~er Q.e~ision I:>ea9,me~! ~.under ~ppel­late rules); Prentzel v. State, 2009 WL 1361959 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (iti is co:µceivaple. tha,t, .. as _a; ~~tte~ of due p~oc~~~' a defendant migp.~ .. have: the Jig4~ t9 Jil~ a. l~te petition for postcon­viction relief (seeking reinstatement of their right .. to appeal their underlying conviction) if the reason fo.r the defendant's failure to comply 'with the statute of limitations was that their attorney falsely assured them that· their ._appeal; had been:filed: and was be­ing purs.ued); Armey u. State, 2008 _WL 5101798 ·(Alaska .. Ct. ,App. 2008) (u;nder AS .12. 72.0?0(a)(3)(A)_,, an; initial PCR applic.ation must be filed within two:years of .the entry pf ju~gment of convi~ .. ~ion: .or, if the convictio:Q. :~s ~ppeElled,. within :Qne year .. of the finaJ judgme~t ,on. appe.al; a .~1$n~t:· rµµ~t ,(1) est~bli~P, due dilfg~nce, and (2) set out facts supported by a¢lmissib~e,,evideµce that est~b­lish either that the applicant suffered from a physical disability or mental disease or defect that precluded the timely filing of the . claim or that the applicant was physically prevented by an agent of the state from filing a timely claim; Alaska Supreme Court willing to allow a claimant to avoid the statute of limitations if he could show that his failure to file within the statute was the

107

§ 4:19 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

fault of.the State); Roberts v. State, 164 P.3d. 664 .(Alaska Ct. App. 2007) (defendant not.·entitled to postconviction review of claim raised in second postconviction application that· jury engaged in impermissible group experiment during·delibetations even though claim could not have bee1i"raised in prior applica.:. tfon, where codefendant had raise<;l cl~im in :his postconViction application, trial coUrt had denied relief based on finding that ex­periment did not undermine result of joint trial, _and denial had b~en affirmed on codefendant's appeal);· Hertz v. State, 81 P~3d 1011 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004) (§ l2.72.020(c) appe~s to apply to c~aims that more directly affect a prisoner's convi~tio'~ and sentence, such. as whe.thel" the Department of Correctioµs cor­r4ctly interpreted the length. of a prisoner'~ sentenc~ 'or prpP,~rly cc;>mputed the amount of gooq. time to which the prisoner w~s eptitled; these matters w.oiild fall' under the scope ·~f .an applica­t~on for postconviction relief); Osborne v. State, l 10 -P .3d 986 · (~as\ta Ct. App. 2005) (S: provision of Alaska's. pos~convictioQ r~lief statute, Alaska: Stat. ; § l2.72.020(b)(2), declares t~at a defendant. is entitled to postconviction relief if the defendant pre­sents newly discovered. evidence that "establishes by. clear and convincing evidence" that· the defendant .is innocenp; but this same provision. declares that a . claim based on newly discovered evidence Will be heard only if the defendant "establishes due dili­gence in presenting the . claim" and further shows that 'the evi· dence supporting the- claim "was· not known within . . . two years dfter ·entry ofthejudgment of conviction"). · · · • ·

I I

§ 4:20 Alaska Statutes §§ 12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska Rule of: Criminal ProcedU..e 35.l~Text of § 12. 72.025 ..

I

'. Applications based on claim of ineffective assistance .of counsel An application may not be brought under AS 12.72~010 or the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure if it is based on a claim that ~he assistance:the applicant's attorney·provided in a prior ap­plication under AS 12.72.010 or the Alaska Rules· of Criminal Procedure was· ineffectiv~, unless it 'is filed within one· year after th~ court's decision on the· prior application is final under the A;l~ska Rules of Appellate Procedure. : · : · · · · · · · · ·

l08

/

Al.AsKA ,. § 4:23

§ .4:21 Alaska Statutes·§§ 12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska Rule bf Criminal.Procedure 35.l;:_Text of § 12. 72.030. . i

Sec. 12. 72.030. Filing ·of application for postconviction · · ~ relief.!·

· (a) An application for postconviction relief shall be· filed with the clerk at the court location :where the· un_derlying criminal case is filed. ·

(b) A person who files an application for post-conviction relief .under this chapter or the Alaska .Rul~~ of..Crimi!l-al Procedure

. may not pursue discovery .fela~d .to. th~. ~pplicatj.on unless the applicant first pleads a prittia f(lci~-cas~ for relief and the court finds that a prima facie ca.se for relief has. been· ~~tablished under this chapter or the Alaska Rules.of'CriininaI Procedure. . . .... - ··\•.': . . '

§ 4:22 . Ala~ka Statutes §§ 12. 72.010; to. 12. 72.040 and Alaska Rule of.Crimin~( Proced~e 35.i~Text of § 12. 72.040 . .

Sec. 12. 72.040. B~den Qf proof in postconviction relief proceedings •.. ·

A person applying for. postconviction :relief must prove all factual assertions .by clear and con'vincing evidence.

§ 4:23 Alaska Statutes §§ 12. 72.010· to 12. 72~040 and Alaska ·Rule of Criminal Pi-ocedure 35.l~'lext of;Rule 35.1

Rule 35.1, Alas~B; R. Crim~ Proc.,)mtitled .~Post-Conviction Pro­cedure," closely resembles the 1966 versiqn of the UPCP A.

Rule 35.1, Alaska R. Criin. Proc., _as .am~nded, 1 pro~~~s:

RULE 35~1 POSTCONVICTION PROC~;lllJRE . . . (a) Scope. A person who lia~·lbe~:Q. convi.C.ted of.'or $ente~ced

for a crime may i~titute a proceedin'.g_fo:r~pC:l~tcoil.Viction r~lief under AS 12.72.010 to.,12.72.940.if'the per$on clajm~: ..

(1) that the convic.tioµ or the.sentence was in violation of the constitution .of the United States or the constitution or , laws of Alaska; . · ... . · . . · · .

(2) that the c~urt was without jurisdiction to impose sentence; · ·

(3) that a· prior conviction has beeri set· aside. and the. prior conviction was used as a statutorily required enhancement of the sentence imposed; · :

( 4) that there. exists evidence of material facts, not ·previ­ously presented and heard, that requites vacation of the conviction, or sentence in ·the interest. of justice; ·

109

§'4:23 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND, RELIEF

, · ·. : (5~ ,that;the applicant's sentenc·e has! expired·, that the ~ap·­plicant~s probation·,- ·parole or conditional release ~as been unlawfully revoked, or that the applicant is btherwise unlaw­

J ._J11lly 4~ld i~;-~U;stody or ot~~f restr~µ~;. -' . . · : .. : .... ". . . . «i '··. (6) that the conviction or sentence.is otherwise subject to

; 1 cQllateral: ~ttack upon any gro_up.d or alleged e~or heretofore , · ravailable under .·al)y comma~ ~aw, ~t~tutory or o~her writ,

motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy; . , . (7) 1that · . . ·: · ... , .

'H' ·.: ·· . ·(A} there:has been a significant change-in law, whether ~s~bst~tive or ·procedural, applied in the proc~ss leac;ling to

<: ~ .... the applic~t's oohViction or sentence; ' . . - . , . . ' .. ·: ·'.c:B) .-~he cliitnge.'inJaw was not.;reasonably:forese~~hi~:by . ' a judge or a ·competent attom~y; - . . .. ' . , '.;

. (C) ~t.~ appr9pri~~ tc;> retroactively apply the chang~ in .. Ji;~·· law because th~·· ~li'alige· in1 la)V· requires· obse~ance~ of

procedures without which the 'likelihood of an accl.trate and fair conviction is seriously diminished; and : ~ .. ~: : :·

·r ., · · · · \{-D) -irihe failure to: retroactively· apply the· ~change -in· law would result in a fundamental ·:miscarriage of justice, which

r. •· • ·is ·established . by .demonstrating· that,· had the change in law been in effect atthe·.time of the applicanes trial, area­sonable trier of fact would have a reasonable doubt as to

. . .· the gµilt of the applic~t; . _ · · · <B}~that :the. applicant~sho.uid: 'he ~ho~t}d.t.o wit;hdraw a pie~ of guilty or nolo .contendere in order to correct manifest injustice· ~ set out' in Criminal RUie 11(h);· ·or . · - , ·

(9) tl~~t ~he) applicant WaS-. ilot afford~d. effective :~SSi~~ance r of counsel at trial ·or ori· direct appeal. '· . .:

(b) Not,. Su~s~itute _for.~~e~~s_il). T.rjal. Court-lteplaces . ·All Other :~m~qi~s (or Challenging. the Validity of a $entertce. · :J This'r~.medy·is 'ri9t.'a ~ubstitute for nor doesjt affect "ariy rem~ . ·: . edy ~ iric.~~ent. to. !the pr"o~eedlpgs. i~ .the .trial. coV:t~,. 'or' direct

review of the sentence oF conviction. It is' intended to 'proVide a · '. 1 · standa;r~ procedure for accomplishing the objectives of all of

1" the· constitutional, statutory or coiilliloil.;law· writs. 1

(c) Commencement of Proceedings-Filtng~Service. A + proceeding is• commenced by filing ·an application with the clerk

at the court location where the underlying conviction is filed. 1· ·Application. forms will· be furnished by the; clerk of court. An

·} .. application must be.filed,within·the time limitations set out in AS 12. 72.020. The clerk shall open a· new. file for .the applica­

:~ · ti9n, p:r;-omptly .btjng it to the. attention of the ;court and give a 4 :qopy tp _t;he,prosecuting attorney. : ·- . , . I

(d) Application-Contents. The ,application shall (1) identify

110

§4:23

the proceedings iii ;which the applicant was convicted, (2) state the date shown in the clerk's certificate of distribution on the jud~ent .compl~ned ~f, · ~3). s~at~ .. the s~nt~nce ,qomplained of and· the date of sentericmg, ( 4) specifically set forth the grounds upon which the application is based, and (5) clearly ·state the relief desired. If the ·application ;challenges· a Department of Corrections or Board of Parole de"cision, the -applicatio1i shall (1) identify the specific. nature of th~ .p_roceedings or·ch~llenged

· decisjon, (2) state the _dat~ Qf .the.proceedings or decisiqn, (3) specifically set. forth the facts and leg~l grpunds u.ppn which the appli~ation is based, .an.d ( 4) cl~arly state ,the .relief desired .

. . Facts within. the.personal 4owledge of.tbe, applicaQ.t sh~ll be s~t oµt separately fr,om other alleg~tio.ns .of facts a:q.P: shall be under oat!i. Affidavits, records,. or o~he:r; evideµce .~uppg~ti!).g its allegati.o~ shall ·be a~tac;:bed to .the .applicati9n or thei.~pplica-. tion shall/recite .why they are, npt, atta~.hed. Th.e:>~PPli~ation

. shall identify all pfevioµs proce,eqi~gs,; togeth.er.. ;wit'Q. the

.. grounqs therein .assert~d,. take~:bY.. tq~· applic~~t tg· s~cure relief from the con~c~ion or sentence ~:q.cluQ.i,ng ~Y previous applications for .postcoµviction_reU~f! Afgµnie11:t, CitE\t!o~ and

.. ·. discus.sio_n of authQrities .~e qnn~ce~s~ Applic~~iqµ.s which are incomplete shall.l;>~,re~urµ.~c1. ~,th~.~pplicant fQ:r.~omp~etion .

. (e) IndigentApplicant~v>"' ,.: · t.·, ·

(1) If the applicalit is indigent; filing fe'es shall be~ paid under the provisions of~As 09~19 and counsel shall·be ap­pointed consistent With·AS 18.85.100·,to-·as~ist the applicant.

' ,- · , ·. 1 • . I•~-~ ~:. J t j '• ~, \ .: t ' ' '. - : .~ • -- '.I • > ' , '

(2) Within 60 days· of ari attOmey's appointmentdi;l behalf of an indigent applicant, the attomeY. shall file with 'the court and serve on the prosecuting· attorney . '·: 1

.''; • -' ', • • :· •

I . • 1 ' ' " f c . -, ~ ' ; ! tj : ·. ! • ' \ • ' • , I . • , ' ' '· ' )

. (A) a stat,emeJi,t tliat .t4e .litig~tion ~JI.proceed on the claims alleged. in the . application 'fj.led, by ~he ~pplicarit; or · (B) an {lin~ndeci-appllc~tio.~ for ·pQs~onvictjon '~~lief; or

. ( C) ·a certificate that the attorney· , ! . · ; · ".·

.. (i)' does! not'have a conflict ofinterest;. '" ; •. ,· • ' ., ' • • •.• f . •f' •

(ii) haei reviewed. tlie facts "of. the underlYin,g ·,proceed-ing or ·action .·ch'alJeng~d iii 'the applfoa~ioii;; .and the pertinent law;" , .. · ' - : · ·· · ·-· · · ..

, .I • • ~ 1, t _1 ._ ! • , t _ . 0 • ~ _ • - - • _ ' , ( < f ; I

· (iii). has .consll:lt.ed with the applicant anp, -if ~ppropri-ate, with .trial, ~ounsel;, and ! : • • • · . .- · .••.•

(iv) has determined that rthe:- claims "pl7esented dn the applicati9n hav:~·.no. a~guab_le merit_:a~d that .. the ap­pli~ail.t has ... no .. otQ.er ~(>J.Q;r~ble; ~lai~ fo;t);po~tc~.ny,iction

. . relief. ' [ . . . . -. ; r • ·• . • ' . , .': ;_ : • • • ;

'· .... (3) The· certificate described in ;subparagraph: (e)(2)(C) shall include a·fulldescription·of · ... L >!·,,1+ .... ;_;· 1:;:_ !·,

111

§ 4:23 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

. ~ ,•

· .. (A) the claims the attorney has:considered;.­(~) the materials the attorney has reviewed; (C) the investigations the attorney has conducted; and CD) the reasons why the attorney has concluded that ·an

o~ the applicant's. potential. claims have· no ~guable merit. : (f') Pleadings and Judgment on Pleadings.

'U) The state shall file an answer or a motion within 45 1 days of service of an original,. amended, or· supplemental ap­

, plication filed by counsel or by an applicant who elects to proceed without counsel, or of~ notice,ofintent to proceed on

··; · the original application under (e)(2)(A) of this· rule. The ap­j · · plicant shall have 30 days to file an opposition, and the state ~ shall have 15 days to file a reply. The motion, opposition, and !· reply imay·be supported by affidavit. At any time prior to f · entry of judgment the court may grant leave to withdraw the

application. The court• may ·make appropriate orders for amendment. 9f the· application or ~y pleading or motion, for pleading over, for filing further pleadings or motions; or for

1 · extending .the time of the filing of any pleading. In· consider-ing· a ·pro se application· the court shall consider .. substance and disregard defects· of form~ 1but a··pro se applicant will be held to the same burden of proof and .persuasion as an ap­plicap.t, ·.proceeding with: counsel., If the applic~tion is not ac-

. companied by the . record of the proceedings challenged .. therein,. the, responde~tmay file. with its~ answer the record

l · . · fu lb:!~~u:~tl~if.f th~t ~~r- n;i~terial to t~e. questions raised

(2) If appointed ~o'1~sel .haf:! ·file:d .a ,certificate under (e)(2)(B) of this rule, and it appears to the court that the ap­plicant is not ~ntitled to relief,. the court. shall indicate to the parties; its.' ·intentidn to permit . counsel' to withdraw and

· · · dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. The ap­plicant and the prosecuting attorney shall be given an op­portunity to reply to the .proposed withdrawal: and dismissal. If th~ applicant files a response ~nd the court finds that the application 'does not.:present ·s_ ·colorable claim, or if the ap­plicant does· not file ir response, the court shall pe,rfilit counsel to withdraw and order the application di'snlissed. If'the court

·'-finds that the application: presents a colorable claim, the court may grant leave to file an· amended application or direct that the proceedings otherwise continue.·

,; "(3)·The court'may gr~nt a motion by either party for sum­'i · mazy disposition· of the· application when it appears from the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and I .' · admiss.ions and.agreements .of fact, together with ariy af­

fidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue-of material

.112 I

ALAsKA § 4:24

fact and:.the: moving party is entitled to judgment· as a mat-;ter oflaw. · . . . . . · . . . . . . · .. , (g) Hearing~Evidence-Order. The. application shall be

·.·heard in, and before. any judge of, the .court in which the underlying criminal case is filed. An· electronic recording of the

. .proceeding_ shall be :Qiaqe. All ruJes and statutes applicabl~, in civil proceediµgs, including pre-trial an4 qiscovery procedures are available ·to the pai;ties except that Alaska Rq.le of Civil

· Procedure Rule 26(a)(l) to (4). does not apply 'to po~tc9nvicti0n relief proc~edings. 'fhe court may receive proof .bY. ·affidavits, deppsitions, oral testimony, or.other evidence. Uriless othe~se r~qui;rec;l bY,' S~Eitrit.~ or constitution, the applicant bears the burden of proving all' factual assertions by clear and .coilvinciµg evidence. The'' court may order.the applicant brought before 'jt for the hearing or ailo~· the applicant to participate telephoni­cally or by vi~eo conferencing. If the·· court findS in fE\yor of the applicant, . it shall enter an apgropriate order. With respect to the 'conviction or sentence in the' former prqceediri.gs, . and. any supplemeµ.tary orders as. t'o r~arraignment, retri~l,. custo4y, bail, discharge, co~ectiOn of. 'sentence, or oth~r #iat~ers t~at may be. nec~~s~ry and_pr.oper. The court shall mfike.'speCific finding~. of fact, and state expressly. its conClusiOns ·of law, ·re­lating to. each issue· presented. The. order niad~ by the court is a final judgment.- · . . . . · . · · ' ' 11

• •• 'i, ·

(b)' Expedited Consideration. An applicant may IJlOVe. for expedited con,sideration of the applicatio~ for .postconviction relief. Th~ motion mus~ comply .w,ith Ciyil Rule. 77(g).

§ ·4:24 Alaska .Statutes'§§ 12. 72.010 to 12. 72.040 ·and-Alaska Rule ot·criminal.Procedure ·s5.1-Irieffective 'assistance ot·colinseI...:..case law · ' ·

. ·For case law on ineffective assistance of counsel, see e.g.,.Davis v. State, 2012 WL 3055018 (Alaska Ct. App .. 2012) .(when.an .or­der dismissing an application 1for post.;conviction ·relief is reviewed, . the well-pleaded . allegations ,in the application are taken as true and it is determined whether those facts,-if proven~ would entitle the applicant to relief; to adequately allegejneffec.;. tive assistance of trial counsel, the application must :show that counsel failed to perform at least as well as any lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law; applicant is also required to show prejudice by creating a reasonable doubt that counsel's .incompetence contributed to. the outcome; it js not suf­ficient for an applicant to ·allege these elements in conclusory terms; the application must include affidavits, records, or other eVidence supporting the allegations or recite why ·they are not at-

113

STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES ~ELIEF

taehed); Nelson v. State; 273:P.3d 608 (Alaska 2C>'l2)·(in·a.Jpost­conviction relief proceeding based on ineffective. as8istan~ce of counsel, counsePs privilege assertion as: to. s-pecific, actions in co¢b~nation iWith 1 a. factual dispute about·those action~: may ~give rise to a. permissible and relevant adverse inference;:-trial courVs decision to· draw an ac;lverse inference from a: ri<>n.;.pmty's' i~voca­tion 'of the fifth Amendment 'should be ·made ·arl;·~.·ease-by~case basis; defense counsel's general invocation of a ·Fifth: Amendriient privilege _regarding ~represe~tatfon of an' applfoant doe's .'dot by itself rebP.f tlie: presunipti()ri of 9r shift t\le b~~den of prol)f' on c·aµnsel'~.- coµipetence; the str~:Q,gth aµd 'cog~~cyj of !tb~.· _apye~se i~e~~nce ·sno~~ ~e teste~ .ag~n_sff}i~ ot~e(.e~fl~p.~~

1

ffth~:~~e; e'?de~~-e qf ~ pnvi~eg~ as~.ert1~n yo1d of.con~e~to.~~s I~~~~~-- to, no w~ight in ·s,atisfying ~ partys evidentiary-butden;. ~tP:9ut

1

~y ev-idi~n:ce' of .~pecjfic. incomp,~~.eqt .a~tions ·or .. any qo':rrobo~fiting adverse jmereiices to be dtawn from counsers· invocation ,of the F~fth '.Amen'.dment, party· f~l~d: to rebut ~the. ptesinrlptiqli ·that cQ~n~~l ac~~~ ~ith ~ompet'e.µce); .Li~d~ma~ ,~f.Sie·t~,~.,2,~4: Pt3d 1i51 ·_(Al~~~- C~.-App. 2011) (app~lla~ counsel's '.~~1r.¢~ to·:~gne tli.at sup~l~'men~aI ,jury instr.~ctjo·n, 'inforpifog jµry.Jthat it coµId co*sider ... possl:Oility that oth'.er objects: observed' iii a photograph c~~~~ ,ha~~-· p,~~~, ~~rder: ~e~PQ.i;l~ p~~judic:eg. ~~fe'pda~~~ and therefore constituted ineffective assistance; supp~e~e~tal in~truc­tion _told_ the jury th~t they could find defend~t·guµtyr ~der a theory 'that through: inaction lie. violated a special duty pwed to victim, the dutY· r~qllhing a person who. place's afrother person in danger to take aftlrrilative actfon to protect· the 'Other persoii' from harm, and such theory was not advanced in the indictment; to es­tabl;is~ a pri~a.la~e case that an app~llate .co~~l's choice of is­s~es· 'was. ~cQ¢pelent, the.}iefenqant, tµust I esf~a~lish: {1) that the proposed} aaClitional issue: is significantly s~onge;r than the issues that. were raised in the ·:appeal; (2) that .. the ·appellate attorney had·,ilo. valid: tactical- reason for failing. to include this particular issue;:.and:(S) that;if the proposed' issue had.'been:Included, there is a· reasonable possibility that the outcome of the appeal would have been· different); Wilson v~ State, ·244 1P.ad .. 535AA1aska Ct. App.: .2010):(application for postconviction relief established prima facie case that-defendant received ineffective assistance in enter­ing 'no: contest plea to' assault in the: second degr.ee, where defendant· alleged that· he specifically asked for legal advice: about possible ·conse·quences of the no contest plea in expected civil..case

· by alleged victim, that def~nse counsel misinfo;rmed him that the plea would .not :prejudice, defendant: in civil case, that trial court iµ. civil caseduled that defendant was collaterally estopped from contesting· elements of assault :conviction, and that defendant would. not have entered no contest. :plea except· for counsel's er-

114

I ALAsKA •:·" · · .•. :.~.··. § 4:24

:(Qneous advice); AJ,exie v. State~ 2009 WL 1039823: {Alaska Ct~ App·. 200!:)~·,(right to: effective assistan~ \afi·counsel protected. by the .. Alaska and United States; Cons.titiitions includes the, right to an1·liiitorney,.·unde:flect~Ji. by conflicting considerations; urider .Al~k~ law, the confffot 'bhabarises. when a law :firm .J.Pepresents co<!_efendants tiDHthe. siyne. criminal case 'is especially. s·erious,, and may:-be considered. a:n ·'inhePentt 1conflict ·-of interest;:· this ty.p.e of eonfligt poten~ially- infects. every major aspect ·of the re;>r_eS,eritation: 1plaiiningi tbe -def~e iStrategy,: investigating, the cas~; decidingiwhethe:r_ to; ·seek-o-:rf ~ccept ·a negotiated~settlement'~ deciding .how· to·~present an~argue th~·- ca~e~ .. ~d .{if the "client.is co~:victed) decidin~·h9w to ·a pp-Poach sentencin~e'fenaant ·is entitled. to: relief . .from: _.an~ ·imh.erentfeonflid~f inteirest unless.,,he waives the canfliet .or~ the. prosecution-proves· the-ttpsen~of pteju.~ dice· beyond a reasonable ~doubt); :Hertz ·v .. State:1. 2009 WL {/r92179 (~aska. Ct. :App. 2009). (the· Due~Process :Claus.a of;the Alaska Constitution- gives courts the authority .to appojnt·:co~sel for~a second application for postconviction reliefwh€b)he appli.eaut .• al­leges ineffective. assistance o(.counsel by; the:~S:,ttorney who. represented them on their first. application); Frank ·v.::state, .2009 WL 349791 (Alaska·~Ct .. App.;2009)(tojprevail on a.claim .. ofinef~ fective assistance of counsel, a defendant has to satisfy a two­prong test; first,',the defendant·'must show. that his,counsel's·rep~ resentation fell:outside the.range:of reasonable. actions which might have been taken by an attorney. ,reasonably skilled in the ~al law; that is, the defendant ~ust ~how that his: ~t~rney was 'incomp~tent.' Se~ond, the def~ndant m¥st sliow some ev\­~ence that ,h~'. w~s. prejudfoe<:l ,by th~,·.a,t~9"~~y's. inc9.n;ip~ten~e); Allen v.· State, 153 P.3d 1019 (Alaska. Ct.i App .. 2007) '(ineffective coµIlsel claim; when a petitioner fo~{~ostco:P.:viction relief conten.ds t~t.1his trial attorney was _incompetent '.in 011e· or more resp~cts, peiititiner 1s requit~d to se~k' an affidavit frQiri ·the tri_al attorney in 'which the attorney 'addresses the' ·petitioner's coiltentfons; in ~t;t;ees in wlifoh. (ppstc~~vi~tfon rell~f peti~ioner's cl~im. of at­torney· incompetence rests· on the· attorney's failure· to present W!tnesses wb~:woiµ~ allege~y·;have given, testiniony favorable to the' defense, . petitioner' 'alleging ineffective . assistance has a duty to allege and prove what would.have be,~n t?aid by.the''ppte~tial witnesses· who were not calle,d,' Le~, a'auty to prQduc~ evidetj.~~ ·~ show that these potential Witne·sses ;would actually have given favoraple t~stimo11y); Knox. v .. Sta~e, l~O. P.3d .971 (Alask.11 Qt. App:· 2006) · (movWit maµe p~a faPi~ showing, ~f i:ight, to: 'post~ conviction relief on ground of ineft'ective"'assistance of caunsel by demonstrating that counsel advised him that pleifofno"contest to COJJ.Solidat.ed ·count, of misconduct involving controlled substance in third .degree. would result. in fiat- prison term· with no proQation

115

§ 4:24 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

oJ parole supervision,. when in fact he was subject to ·mandatory p~role for term exceeding two years); Osborne v~ State; 110 P.3d 986 (Alaska Ct. App .. 2005) {cl~ that counsel:was ineifectjve·fu -d~ciding not· to seek. more. advanced DNA testing on some. of the physical evidence that connected defendant to the :crime·; Alaska uses a two:.pronged standara-for-~evaluating ineffective assistance of cQunsel claims; the first prong requires -the ··aceus·e-d" to~ prove,.­tlllat the perfo:rmanee· ."of .trial c·ounsel .fell .below~ 'an objective standard: qefense counsel must. :perform at least).as· well as .a lawyer· with ordinary training· a~d skill in· the. c~al law .and _ uiust conscientiously protect -his:,clierit's intere~t, .undeftected,by c~n~ctfo.g consjderations; the.second prong requires a showing-af pl:ejridice: there .must.,be .a showing that the .. lack of competency contributed· to.the .conviction; ;if: .the first burden....:...the burden. of p~oving deficient performance-has been met; all that is required additionally. is •to cre8;te a- reasonable doubt that the incompe­t~n~ · contribut~d:-to the· outcome); Armey v~ State, 2008 WL 5101798 (Alaska. Ct. App~ 2008) (to· establish a claim ·that an at­tprney· :was "ineffective for failing to file, defendant was required tp· file an affidavit from the: attorney or· explain why such· an affi­davit could not be filed to. establish a prima facie ·case). · i ' .

§ 4:25 Alaska Statutes §§ 12.72.010 to 12. 72.040 and Alaska ! · · ·Rule of Criminal.Procedure 35.1-Summary disposition-Case law

l For case law oµ.· Rul~ 35.1, see e.g., ~le;ie v. Stp,te, 2009 WL . 1039823. (Al~ska Ct. App. 2009). (motiop for ~ummary ~sposition under Alaska Criminal Rule: 35.l(f)(3) is E;ubstantially identical tP. an Alaska Civil Ru,le 56 ~otion for. summary juqgment; co\¢ iP.-ay grant a summary dispoeition of an application for postcon­v,iction relief if the~e is no· genuine issue of ma:terial fact ~nd the iµoving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; movant's only burden under Criminal Rule 35.1(£)(3) is to raise .a genuine iSsue of material fact requiring a hearing); Arm~y ,v.i State, 200~ WL 5101798 (_Alaska Ct. A.PP· 2008) (a judge may grant s~ary disposition of ail application for postconvictioµ r~Uef when there ~e n.o genuine issues of material fact that are.in'dispute-:that is~ 'Y'hen, Wld~r the.undisputed facts of the case, the moving "party is entitled to judgnient as a matt,er of law). ,

~· 4:26 '.Alaska Statutes§§ 12.72.010to12~72.040 and.Alaska RUie of CrinlinaI'Pr,ocedure 35:1-Rule· 35.l(e)_:, Caselaw ·· ···

~ For· case law, Seek v. State, 2009 WL 226012 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) ~amended certificate. containing a lengthy analysis· of the

I

116

ALAsKA § 4:28

juror.· misconduct issue, as well as .defendant's claims that his previous postconviction relief attorney had represented him incompetently sufficient tinder Criminal ·Rule 35.l(e)(2)(B) for at­torney's conclusion that none.of defendant?s· the claims had any arguable .merit); Dayton v.: State, 198( P .3d 1189 '(Alaska. Ct . .A:pp. 2009)· (a· court might properly dismiss ·a petition for postconvic­tion relief if.both ·the petitioner and the· petitioner's·· attorney obstinately refuse to comply With -RUie 35.l(e)). · ·. · ·

• . . •. • ) J •

§ 4:27 Alaska.Statutes·§'§ 12.72.01o·to· 12.'72.040 and Alaska Rule of·Criminal Procedtire 35.1~1\laska Statutes § 09.19.010 '

Alaska· Stat~ .§ 09 . .lS.010 ma:\t~s it difficult for. i~digent .prison~ ers to obtain leave .to proceed in forma pauperis iri ·Alaska post~ conviction: relief proceedings. Under Alaska Stat. § 09.19.0lO(a), a "prisoner may ·not commence ,litigation against the state unless the prisoner has paid full ·filing fees· . . ~ ·except . that the court may exempt a .prisoner from paying '.part of .those fees if the. court finds exceptional cir"cumstances '. . · . }' Furthermore,, under Alaska. Stat.§ 09.19.0lO(c), "[i]mprisonment and indigency.do not constitute exceptional circumstances if the· prisoner has· available income or resources that can. be applied to the filing fee.~' Alaska Stat. § 09.19.0lO(d) provides: "In setting the fee~· the court, at a minimum, shall· require the prisoner .to ,pay :filing· fees equal to 20 percent of the· larger of the average monthly deposits made to the prisoner's account . . · . , or the average balance in that account

" .

§ 4:28 ·Alaska Statutes§§ 12.72.010 to 12•72.040·and Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.1-Alaska Statutes;;· § 09.19.010-Case law

For cas.e law on AS·§ 9.19.010, see. e.g., !Jarber v. 'State,}Jept .. of Corrections, 314 P.3d 58 (Alask~ 2Q13) (prisoner }itigatfon filing fee statute, as applied to indigent prisoner, who' claimed that he was wholly deprived of judicial revi~w. of the .J)ep¢ment of CQr­rections' (DOC) disciplinary decisioi;is agaiµst him placing him in punitive segregation due to his inability to remit partial 'payment of superior court filing fees ~equired:by the ~statute,

1 violated

prisoner's procedural due· process rights; Supreme Court found §: 9.19.010, ·as applied in this case, unconstitutional); Johnson. v~ State, Dept~ of CorrectiOns, 2012 WL 5830213" (Alaska 2012) (superior court abused its discretion·byfailing to consider reason­able alternatives for inmate's payment of filing fe·es fot his ap­peals of three conduct .violation penalties, although it was obli.;. gated to require 1him to . pay filing· fees~ at ·a mittimum, equal to

117

§ 4:28 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND, RELIEF

20% of the .larger ·of the average. monthly deposits made to the prisoner's accQunt or:the avel"age balance in that.acpount, .and inmate did- not .pay the:fe~s, :since inmate's failure to pay the .fees 4i.P. ·not excuse the .court from its ·duty ,to advise, inmate of the 1pro~ cedure he should:.follow·to bring· the·issue of.his inability. to pay to; .the. coun'si attention and to consider ·solutions other than-: dis­Plissal l,ljter he:struggfed: to;Abide -by:~ourt.,rules~;.Ba·ker.v. Stat~, 158 P.3d 836 (Alas~a Ct, App.' 200'7) (Fred A .. Baker i~-pursuiµg a petition for postconviction relief in the superior court, and he has 19ftge~'",aJ~epµpn ~or:.re'\:'i.ew~in his petition,,;:Qajte~. cha.l;lenges the s~perio~ CC>lJrj;'s .f~ure .. ;~0 eptf3r. ~µmm~j~dgipe,pt ii\ -his favor; Bakei;'s .. petition has not 'yet gone forward' be~aq~e .~·~·preliminary ptoblem has arisen: the parties disagree on how to calculate the fi~·n.g fee that Baker-must; pay to·purs.tie. this appellate litigation; B ker.is in:digent·and, thus, he; would. normally· qualify. for an e emption: from this court's normal filing fee of $150.00; however, B~ker is currently a: .prisoner;' and .his. petition· for• postconviction . relief constitutes· -~litigation against .the .• st~te".: as defined. in Alaska· Stat. § 09.19.100(1); :b~caus~ of,this, Bak~r. must pay the niandatoryrminimum filing fee:,specified \in § 09.19.0lO;:Baker aµd. the -sta~ agree· that Bakers mandatory minimum· filing, fee niust be. calculated· using the formula. specified .in;·§~ 09.19.0lO(d), but they disagree.· concerning~ how. this. formula- should be interpreted; the., problem: is that, following. the enactment of Alaska Stat.§ 33.30.20l(d}rin 2006, prisoners have two.separate accounts: theit:.normal prisoner-account (what ~e Department of Corrections·!calls .. the "funds available" account) which contains money that the prisoner can spend for purposes, and a "forced savings" account to which the prisoner has no direct access; this f6rced · sav.iagS.1.acc0unt contains· money whose~.primary ·purpose is to provide; funds for. the prisoner .when the. prisoner is~ eventually released from custody; the question presented here- is.;whether th~ .mon.ey .iµ a. p~so,ner's forced savings ,account _should~. be cpnB.j~er~d\'1~~n .a court cructila~es.'.th~ .prisoner's m~nd'atory 'Illin­~um'fillng·fee Uiider §'09~19.0lO(d); we hold'.tha:t·it should not). f' ' ~ ! • ,· \ . •. , ·: ' ' I j I : :' , • ~~ · '. - • :, ~ • ;,_·: • • l • ~ ; • ~ ., . . . .

§1.4:2ff ~ri(of)i~~eas _corP.~·~d~r ~a.sk.a.;Stat~tes · • ' •• ! §§ 12.75.010 'to 12.75.230 ' . '1

1" " • ·'. • .

I J ~- • , . l • l : • • • . : • '. : { j' I : {' ' f ,. .~ • . ' • ~ • • ' i I

. ~e;writ~of )!abeas corpµs, js aµ available postconVi~tio~.;r;emr ~dy .~ Af~ska.~ The js~t,utQcy provisio.~ :relating'. to. t;he wtjt ·of ha­'Qea~. c,o~us in N,ask~ are fo.uµ.<l in C~apter 75 of Title 12 of the 4.J.as}ta; .. S~~tµtes, entitl~d ~".Habea~ Co~us/' whi~h en~oinpasses ~aE;ka ~tat ... §.12.75.010 throµgµ § l2.7p.~3P.. . .. · . , . , .·~ ....

1 The_.superiot court and Its judges µiayiss.ue .writs of:hab~as 9orpus. Alaska Stat.§ 22.10.02Q(c).:A final judgment of a superior qourt; granting· or .de1:1ying postconviction. habeas. corpus. relief is

118

ALAsKA §:4:31

appealable t_o the Alaska 1Cowt of Appeals. Alaska· Stat. § 22.07.020(a)(l), · (5); ·see· also Alaska Stat. ,§ 22.0.7.020{c)(.1); Alaska Stat.§ 12.75.230. See, e.g.,.Haroey.v. flnttim·, .160-P,Bd 673 (Alaska, Ct. App .. 2007)· (Alaska •Courts· .had jurisdiction to hear and_ decide inmate's habeas corpus claims,. though inmate was .housed in: a correctional facility in.another -state, :as· inmatels immediate-~custodian,> i.e~-~ ·.the. ward~:t1 of: the ·out".!df-state; cor­rectional ·facility, held .inmate as an-. agent. of the Alaska ,Depart­ment of Corrections, and "Wat.!den. was .reachable by service of pro­cess, in Alaska; . even thpugh .-!a•. court must normally have jurisdiction over a prisqner~s ·immediate; .custodian :iri. ··order _for the court to .entertain~ the. prisoqer~.s ;babe~s.corpus. petition·, ;that jurisdiction need. not. be ,ba.s~d-,on: t;be: ~us~o.dian's. physical pi:es.~ ence within the court's _ten;itorial. jurisdict.ion; insteaQ,· .~he requisite jurisdiction can be established by service of process if, because . ~f. agen~y or oth~:cyvise,_ the. C!,lstod~an. -h~s. suff!~ient contacts with. the com:t's.tertjtofialjutjsdicpqµ) ... :: - · . · ·

• '• •.• ' ,, J • • ; ...... • • .. • .. ... ., ' :•. ..

§ 4:30 Writ of habeas cori)us ilitder Af~~~St~tut~s §§ 12. 75.010 to 12. 75.23~Alaska Rule of Civil

. Procedure ··se(m);_Te:Xt 'o' ·ru1~ , ! · • , •

. . . ·, ' .. ;; f" .'.. ' ' : \ ; .. '

Rule c86(m). pro~c;l~~-: · , , ! ! 4~ ' •

Supersed~d by PostconVidtion 'Relief Procedure· Under cii~irial ·" RUie 35.1~ This'.:title does ndt applyto·any·postconviction·proceedirig' · that could be brought :un.der 0ririlinal Rule; 35.1. ·The· court shall·-· treat such a complaint as an application for postconviction relief under. Criminal Rule 35.1 and, if necessary, transfer ,the application . · to the court. of :appropriate. juriadictiOn for proceedings ~der that rule. ·,.\ ',_.·.: ; .. · : ·

§ 4:31 Writ of habeas corpus under Alaska· Statutes §§ 12.75.010. to '12.75~230-Alaska Rule .of Oivil ... · !

. iProcedure-'88(m)-Case law ;I

'._·For case. faw ~n Rule . 86(~), ~ee e.~·., Leip,i.s l!· ~tate~ 200~· -~ ·11~04·5~·-_(Al~ska:Ct . .f\pp. 2009)_ (Rul~ 86(m) describes th~_pr~ce­dure that· niust b'e followed ·for· a habeas petition that coulff h:ave been filed as an appJiCat~on 'for posfoori.\lictioh 'relief; under this ritle, wh~Ii: a petitfoner asserts ¢laiins in: ·a hab~~s petition; -~hat c~m~d ·have beell brought i~. ·im application f<?~ ·pos~c,onvfotion relief, a: court· is· required ·to· treat the' petitfon'. as an application for postconviction relief); DeNardo v. Municipality of AnC'horage, 2009 WL 692098 (Alaska Ct .. App. 2009) (the writ of habeas cptjlus ·is a~ e~ap:r:~i~~fr.' ;rem~dy, · liti~ants' ar~_: not\ al}owe'd. to· seek' habeas· corpus relief-if they are entitled to ~e~k relief using normal trial court or appellate procedures);_ Gnhols · v. State, 10 }>.3d.600 .(Alaska ~ct~ .App.; ~000),, decisiQP aft'd in 1part; 74. P.3d

:119

§.·4:31 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

889 (Alaska· 2003) (in January 1995 the state supreme court afuended Civil Rule 86, relating to habeas corpus, by adding sec­tfons: (m) and (n), which restrict habeas corpus in cases where a postconviction petition could be filed; Civil Rule 86(m) and § 12, 72.020(a) do not constitute an unconstitutional suspension of habeas· corpus;. the habeas corpus clause of the state constitution does not gl.iarantee the right to attack a criminal conviction; the state constitution gvarantees: habeas corpus' as it existed at com­nion law~·and at common.law habeas corpus could not be used to collaterally attack a criminal judgment· except to;attack the juris­diction of the court that issued the judgment;· the. habeas .corpus chapter of the ·Alaskai Statutes guarantees the:same limited ha­b~as remedy that existed:· at common law; here, the petitioner .cfu,. es not attack the jurisdiction of the .convicting court). .

§ 4:32 · ·Writ· of habeas corpus under Alaska Statutes · : §§ 12.75.010 to·l2;.75.23()...;..Grounds for relief.....'.·

. Claims regarding convicting court'~ lack of .. jUrisdiction·· · · · :

Gen~raliy, 'the. writ of hab~~ corpus may n9t be·used to attack a conviction or sentence in Alaska except on grounds of lack of jµrisdiction. See, e.g., Hertz v. State, 2009 WV792779 (Alaska Ct. App .. 2009)_(the co~on law Writ of habeas corpus addresses a limited remedy: it permits an incarcerated crintjnal: defend~t to test the jurisdiction of the sentencing court). · ·

§ 4:33 . Writ of -habeas corpus under Alaska Statutes. I · §§ 12. 75.010 to 12. 75.230--Grounds for relief-

1 Claims not involving validity of conviction or' sentence

The writ of habeas corpus may be· used by a convicted person in Alaska to raise certain claims not affecting the validity of the conviction or sentence. See, e.g., Hertz µ. Stq,t~, 22 P.3q ~95 Waska Ct. App." 2001) (habeas petition does ~ot .atta~k ptjsOner's ~onYic.tion or sentence or the. sentencing· c~urt'~ · jurisdic~fon;. ·i?.or does the prisoner c~allenge tqe :departmen~ of porrections clas­sification decision' that resulted in' his tr~nsfe'r to Arizona'; instead·, the haQeas claini, which was' rejected on the merits, re-1ate.s to the lawfulness of his. trans.fer to a private prison. in Arizona)~ ·

§ 4:34 Motions .to correct ·i)l~gal s~nt~nce and ~o redu~e . or modify sentence under Al~ska Rule of Crimin~ Proce4~e 35 · . ,. · ·

Rule 35, Alaska R. Crim. Proc. authorizes two postconviction

~20

ALAsKA § 4:36

remedies available in the convicting court: (1) the motion to= cor­rect illegal sentence, and (2)'. the motion to reduce or modify sentence.

Rule 35(a) authorizes the motion to correct ·illegal sentence, and Rule 35(b) authorizes the motion to reduce· or modify sentence. ... ..

See e.g., Stone v. State, 2009 WL·795211·(Alaska:Ct.:App. 2009) (unpublished) (Rule 350>) authorizes a sentencing court.to modify or reduce a sentence in many .circumstanc.es,'. but :this .rule expressly states that the court has no power· to ·'~reduce a· sentence imposed in accordance with· a ·plea agreement between. :the defendant and the prosecuting attorney that provided for imposi­tion of a specific sentence or· a sentence equal to or less than a specified maximum"; reasonable judges and atto~neys · could · conclude· that Stone had no right to appeal his.,sentence ·on the ground .of excessiveness, or, to seek reduction of his sentence under. Criminal Rule 35(a))~

§ 4:35 Motions to correct illegal .sent.ence and ·to reduce or modify sentence ·under Alaska Rule of Criminal

· _ Procedure 35-Alaska Statutes § 12.55.088 · The power of convicting courts, acting within iso: days of

sentencing, to· grant ·a motion to reduce sentence is also ·autho­rized by ·Alaska Stat. § 12.55.088, which is entitled "Modification of Sentence,"· and contains·Iangliage similar to the language in Rule. 35(b). In ·fact, -Rule• 35(b) practically is a paraphrase of the statute. · . . . . .

§ 4:36 Motions to correct illegal· sentence and to reduce or modify sentence ·under Alaska .Rule of Crimjnal Procedure 35-Alaska Statutes § 12.55.088-Text

As amepded, .Al~k~ ~tat. § 12.55 .. 9ss provid~s: . . , . .. Sec. 12.55.088 •. ·. ,Modification· of sentence~ . ·

(a) The court may modify or reduce a sentence by entering a written order under a motion made·within-180 days of the orig-inaLse:r;itencj.ng. . . . 1 ·

(b) The s~ntencing court may not be required .to. ~ntertain a second or successive.· motion for simil~ relief b~Qught.under (a) of this section· on behalf of the same ptisone~. : '.

(c) Asentence,inay not be reduced or modified so•as·to result in a term 6f .imprisonment that is -less than· the· minimum sentence or· lower than the. presumptive range required· by law for the original :sentence; . . . . ..

(d) A victim has the right to comment in writing to the court

121

§:4:38 STATE PosrcoNV1cT10N REMEDIES AND RELIEF

on: a motion to. modify. or reduce a ·sentence filed by the, person .. who' perpetrated the offense against the victim,. and. pas the . right to give sworn testimony or make an unsworn oral presen­. tation at a: hearing held .in connection with. the·motion. If there ;are~,numerous victims, the court may;Hmit ·the .number :of victims who may give sworn testimony or make an .unsworn oral Pf:QS~ntatiPl.l during. the bearing. . . . . . · >.\(e) .If a· motion, is .filed to~modify or redude1 ·a sentence by a

, ::defendant 1who:peI!petrated a ·crime against .. a person or arson . ··in· the-first·· degr~e,:the court shall, if feasible,~send a: copy of the . 1motion to; the Department of Corrections sufficiently Jn advance .

1

iof. any sch~.duled hearing· or briefing deadline to. en. able· the ·-· department to notify the. victim of that crime. If that victim has · earlier requestedrto be notified;, the Department of Correctio~s

·I shan send, the victim a copy ·ofi the fmotion and-.. inform the ·~person of !that ·person's rights under thlsffsection, ,the. deadline !for receipt of written 'comments, the .hearing: date~·iand: 1the court's address.

I (f)~ The-co\nt shall provide.,copies of the victim's ~written.coin­: ments to the· ·prosecuting attorney, the: person~filin.g the motion to reduce: ot modify'. a sentence, and '.that person's attorney.

(fl) In deciding whether tQ modify .or reduce: a sentence, the . ~ coµrt shall. consider. the: .victim'~ :coinmentij,, t~_stimony,. or un­

·, 1 sworn; Qrt\l pres_entatio,n,, when relevant; a~d: .aµy. r~sponse, by ; : the. pi;pe~cuting attorney and .. :th~ .person .filing, the· motion. · .·' · (h) , If ·a ~ctin1 ·desires notice under this section, the victim

shall maintain a current, valid mailing address on file with.the ~ommissioner of corrections. The commissioner shall send the notice ,to. the· ~tim's last~lmown ;address .. The :victim!.s' address

i may not ·be. disclo~ed· to the offender'or,to~the Qft'ender's~attorney. • ' • ~" ,, ' ' 1 # • • - • ~ J~ • • • . • •• ' i..:. ! ."' • '": r : r ...

§ 4:87 Motions to correct illegal senteilJ,e and' t() reduce or modify sentence,under.Ala'ska1Rulei.of-Cl-iminal Procedure 85-Case.law ~egarding motion:to· ..

·,correct illegal. sentence , : ' ... :'.. -~ . · .: ,. ,:. ::•;:. · F~r case law on_ motions to correct illegal. sentehee: ~ 1 Alaska,

see, e·.g~; ·Esmailka· v." 'State, 2008 WL 5192405~ {Alask~ ;Ct~ i App. 2008} '(unpublished)' (term "illegal sentence"~ ha81 'been. n:artow ly construed; it applies only t() sentences :which the: judgment of conviction;did hot' authorize; examples of illegal.sentences would be. (1) a sentence that was contrary~to. the applicable :statute, .i.e., in eX?cess:o£ the statutory :penalty; (2) a written;judgment not cpnforming to the oral pronouncement• of sentenq~;1 or;' {3);"a sentence thatJSi :ambiguous· With,.resp~ct to the; ti~e· and manner

122

I

I ALAsKA §·4:40

in which it is to be serveCV,·rule 35(a) does not pernrlt·consideration of matters outside the s~ntencing record, nor does it authorize a collateral attack on .. the proc~edings which resulted in the sentence·imposed;.the guiding principle of· Rule 35(a)'is·,whether the court' imposed a-sentence that was not. authorized.by the judgment-of convictionkWalsh v. State~ 134 P.3d366 (Alaska Ct. App~ 2006) (sentence imposed in violation of Blakely v~ Washington, 54:2 u~R!296, 124 S. Ct .. 2531, 159· L. Ed. ·2d 403, 6 A.L.R Fed-. 2d 619 (2004);· is "illegal ·sentence" that may be~.challenged under Alaska c~~irial rule 35(a),'· g~verirlng ~orr~ct~on of' illegal. s~n­~~ces); State v. Avery·,- 130 P.3d' 959 (i\laska' Ct.' App ... 2006) (R~e 35(a) motion 'to co~~ct .sentence raised '.Claim that, :under Blakely v~. Washington, 542 U.S; 296, ·124· S>Ct. ·2l$31,"159 L. Ed~ ·2a 403; 6 A.L'.R. Fed. ,2d 619· (2004), th~ se~~ence was illegal). . · . · ,,. ·

• , . • ~ . I . • • •

§ 4:38 ~otions .t~ .~<>~ect; illegal sent¢n,ce and· to: reduce or modify. ~entence tinder Alaska Rule. of Criminal Procedure 35~Case law r~g&rdin:g motion to ':, . reduce or modify sentenc~ . . . ' . ., . .

For. ,case la~ on motion& to .-reduce senten~e i.n .AI~ska, see,. e.g., Coffmari. v.. ,State, 172 ~.3d ~.04-,(Ala~ka Ct.,~pp. ?007) ..

~ 4:39 Judicial :review of prisq~ disciplin,arf decisions -· · under Alaska· Statutes §· 33.30.295 · · · · ·

'. ..1 •• I .·• I .'·.

i · Appeals by inmates seeking judicial :review of .prison· disciplin­ary decisfons·are·now regulated by statute. See;Alaska Stat. § 8~.30~295, entitled "Review of Prisoner= Disciplinary Decisions." ._; · Under Alaska Stat. ·3a~ao.295; "a prisoner may obtain judicial review by a superior court of a final disciPlinarjr decision~ by the department .. [of cornections]" only if the prisoner alleges specific facts establishing a violation, :of the prisoner!s. fundamental constitutional rights that prejudiced the prisoner's right .to. a fair adjudication." Also under Alaska Stat. § 33.30.295, the appeal to ~.e ~oµrj;s for jucµci~~ revi~w of the disciplin~ry depisio~ ·"shall be commenced by.filing a :notice. of ~ppeal an9 other ,-~~qui;re4 docu-~enj;s" in the superior .court·· , , 1• .. , ......• , , • .. i

The final decision of the superior·court is. then app~alable of right to the Alaska Supreme Court. Alaska S.tat. § 22j05~010(c). See Hertz v. State, 81 P.3d 1011 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004).

§ 4:40 . Judicial review ·of prison disciplinary. decisions · · under Alaska Statutes §.3S.3m29£>.,;..;.Text : · ·

··Alaska Stat ... § 33:.30.295 provides:'.

123

§ 4:40 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

:·Sec. 38.30.295. Reyiew of prisQner. disciplinary : • ·1 decisions. . .

·. (a) A prisoner may obtain judicial review by the superior :court of.a final disciplinary.decision by the department.only if · the prisoner alleges specific facts establishing a violation of the t prisoner's f~damental .constitutional rights that: prejudiced ! the· prisoner's right to a fair adjudication. An appeal shall be : commenced by the prisoner. filing a notice of appeal ·and other required doquments in accordance with AS 09.19 aµd the ap­plicable rules of court governing a.dministrative appeals that 4o

, :r;iot .conflict.with A~ 09,.19. Unless *e appeal is not accepted . ·for filing under AS 09.19.010 or is dismissed under AS

09.19.020, a record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the departme.nt, ~onsisting of the original papers a~d exhibits submitted in the disciplinary process and a cassette tape of the disciplinary. hearing. The reco~d shall be p~epared and transmitted in accordance with the ·applicable rules of court governing achµinistrative appea)s. . . .

(b) A disciplinary decision may not be· r~versed . (1) unless the court finds that the prisoner's fundamental

constitutional rights were· violated in the cour·se of the disciplinary· process, and that the violation prejudiced the prisoner's right to a fair adjudication;

(2) because the dep~rtinent failed to follow hearing requirements set· out in state· statutes and regulations, un­less the prisoner was prejudiced by the denial of· a right guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution or United States Con­stitution; if such prejudice is found, the court shall 1enter ju<:igment as provided in (c) of this section and remand the case to thfa departmen~; or

(3) ·because of insufficient evidence if the record. described in (a) of this· section shows that the disciplinary decision was

: based on some evidence that could support the decision reached.

1

• (c). The' court shall enterjudgment setting aside or.affirming the disciplinary decision without limiting or controlling the discretion vested in the department to allocate resources within the ·department and to control security and :administration

t within the prison system. ·

§ 4:41 Judicial review of prison disciplinary decisions under Alaska Statutes § 38.30.295-.Case law

For case law on inmate appeals to the superior court for judicial

124

ALAsKA § 4:41

review pursuant to these .statutory provisions or pursuant to Alaska· Supreme. Court decisional -law, of .prison disciplinary deci­sions or of certain other prison administrative decisions, see, e.g., Deremer v. State, Dept. ofCorrections,.2014.WL 4952503 (Alaska 2014) (unpublished) (according to AS 33.30.295~ a_disciplinary hearing cannot be reversed because of insufficient. evidence if the record shows that the disciplinary decision was ·based on some evidence that could support the decision reached); DeRemer v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 307 P.3d 975 .(Alaska 2013) (inmates have a right to appeal disciplinary determinations affecting their (undamental constitutiona~ rights to the. ·superior cou,r,t; if fundamental constitutional rights. are. alleged. to be abridged' in disciplinary proceedings, it would be the duty of the court to inquire into the allegations); James v. State, Dept. ofJ;orrections, -260 P.3d 1046 (Alaska. 2011) (to reverse a disciplinary dete~na­tion, an inmate must demonstrate both tha~ a constitutional .right was violated and that the violation prejudiced the inmate's right to a .fair adjudication; the requirement of a verbatim record will help insure that administ~ators will act fairly, will furnish a more complete and ·accurate source of information than the writ­ten statement requirement· and ·will assist in facilitating;·a more. intelligent review of the disciplinary proceeding; inmate's state­ment of evidence and testimony presented at disciplinacy hearing 9ifferec;l in significant aspects from DOC's ·version, including a discrepancy .over whether inmate asked,.why certain witnesses were not present at the hearing and how the. hearing officer responded to inmate's inquiry; given that the primary purpose. of recording a disciplinary hearing is to accurately preserve it for administrative appeal and appeal to the superior court, the fail­ure to record ~he heari.ng in this case was prejudicial to in.mate's right to a fair' adjudication); Wilson v .. State, Dept. of Corrections, 127 P.3d 826 (Alaska·2006) (prirsuant. to statute and :regulatioJ?. requiring release of prisoners to the "place of arrest," . prisoner sought to· be returned to his home where he was arrested, which was ;3.5.miles .by foqtpath or skiff from the nearest communi~y; after Department of Corrections refused to pay for transporta-

. tion, he filed post-release administrative appeal in superior court· seeking declaratory judgment and damages; when the superior court acts as an intermediate court of appeal in -an administra­tive matter, we independently and directly review the agency de­Cision); Brandon. v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 73. P~3d 1230 (Alaska :2003) (inmate Richard· Brandon alleges that the Depart­ment of Corrections violated his .federal and Alaska:. co.nstitritional. rights to an impartial fact finder.·and· to due·process·geµerally by allowing a single hearing officer .to decide his disciplinary hearing in violation- of the version of the Alaska Administrative Code that

125

§ 4:41 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

was in effect at the time; we find· no constitutional violation; judicial review of prisoner dis'ciplinary decisions· is. governed by ~aska Stat. § 0 33.30~295; we have previously held that we have jurisdiction ·to review Department of Corrections·. administrative de·cisio.ns.which implicate an inmate~s- procedt1ral due process rights;. whether. an iri.mate has received .procedural ·due prQcess is ari. issue of constitutional law that ·we review de novo). . · '

I i ~ . .. ~ • • . i ' : • ;

§ 4:421 .. : Motion .to correct clerical erl'or. under Alaska Rule , . , . of_CriminaJ,Procedure36

1

Rule 36, M.~ka· ~·j C~m: Pr'oc.", w~~h-is ·~odeled .~ft.er ~u1e·a~., F~d. R~ Cnm~ · Proc~; pr.ov1des:· "Clenca1 mistakes m Judgments'; ?~ders~' ~r· .othe~\ P8!ts of t?e: record; and errors in tile record aris­mg from oversight or onuss1on; may be ·corrected by the· court at ~y time:'and'°after-such notice~ if any, as the court orders~. For ptirposes of this· rule, the ·record includes ·electronic information maintained: about the case." Under. Rule 36; therefore, a criminal defendant or·the· state may at any ·time move 1 the convictingicourt tQ:correct a clerical error m.:the·court~s-judgment or in the court r~cord;· moreover,; ~he convicting co~, acting on its. own motion, may correct,a:clencal error at.any time. /1 . • j •• ,

.•· '. l • ' .. , ..

§ ·4:43 . Writ; of ·error coram n9bis . \ ; i ~

There are no reported instances of the·wnt of error coram nobis being· used:· as a postconviction remedy in Alaska; ·and therefore coram nobis· has never been recognized as a postconviction rem-epy ~.Alaska. .:1 · • ·. ·:

. : _:.:

§: 4:44 1 Postconviction DNA testing statute .. ~~$~'a's , rie~ly ;enacted Po~~~Co~victio~ DN4 ~~stirig Proce.­

dures is effective a~ .. of July 1; 2010,and appears as Alaska Stat. §§ 12. 7·3.0lO to'..)12: 73.09'0., See '2010 ·Alaska Laws .Ch.· 20 (S.B. tlO)~ · · , c • · '· '.; ~ , • · · · : : · ·

. Chapter 73." .Post~ConVictfon n:NA Testing· Proced~es~ 1 • ~ ) .. ' t J -~ • I • .' ~ ; ' •. ' : . : . . . • . r : : , . , i - . ; •_ .

':I . • ; • : 1 • r • ~ 0 .AK ST § ·12. 73.010 , : '\ , i ; .•

1; ' . .i.. J ;· - •• ' • "' . . t : - : : -~ _- • .... . • . .. . . '

. L·S~c. J2. 73.0lQ. . Applica~ion for; ,post-convictio.n DNA " . , i \, > _, • " .'testing~ , ;

0 , ; ; { '•:

0 • , ; • I ' ', ,

·-r·~ '.(a)' A.person· convicted of a felony.against:a per8on.under·AS :· .11.41 who 1has not .been unconditionally discharged :may apply : to· the superior. court for. an order; for· DNA testing· of evidence. : The apiplication must be: ,filed in lthe court that entered the

I judgment of ~onviction,. and. accopy .shall ~be senred. on the pros­ecuting authoricy responsible·fo:u ·obtainmg the: convicti01i~' ...

126

ALAsKA §:4:44

(b) .An a~plicatio~ filed· under (a);of this section must :Specifi­cally ident1fyrthe evidence'sought to· be·tested and must include facts ·from which the court can niake the findings required

· under AS 12.·73.020. ;The application must also include .. (1) an affidavit by ·the applicant that attests to the

following: · · · (A) the ·applicant- did not. commit' the· offense· for which

the applicant'was cortvictep or a;lesser.·included. offense; (B) the applicant.did not solicit another.person to com­

mit, or aid or;.abet ·another person hi planning. or commit­ting, that offense or~a lesser .ill.eluded .offense; and

... · · , .. (C) . the, applicant did not admit~ or concede guilt under oath in an official procee.ding. for ;the. ,offense that was the

. basis. of the convictiQn or. i:t lesser i~cluded. o~ense, except ' th~t. the court,.Jii the ipte:r;"~

1

S,t. ofju8tice,. may .w.aive this ' requireinent; for . t~e: 'purpm~'es of this sul;>paragraph, the e~Fry .of a griil~y .~~ · nol? .co~~~.~~rEt .. ple~ i~. not :~~ · ~~s-s1on or concession of guilt; . , ·

. (2) . an :affidaVit. by .th~· ,iippli~aht. ~r ~he applic~t's ·a~torney stating the re·sults of each DNA' test 'p~#'ormed."Q.~ tl},~ evi­dence in the. prosecution that resulted ·in.' the, 8'.pplfo·ant's conviCtion · , · ' ' · 1

• ; • • ! • · : · ' , I •

(3) an affidavi~ by the applicant ·or the ~pplicaµt's attorney describing all preViou·s efforts to obtain DNA testing ai;id any

. " previous application.filed undef AS·; 12. 72 or'this section. ' (c) An attorney who repr.esents. an' applicant under this sec­

tion shall investigate and, if· possible, ;.con:firni the acctiracy of i~fonnation :provided by·1the ~applicant .under: (b)(2) and (3) of this section. · . · . ·. ,

(d) . If an applicant. is mruge~t,;. filing Je.es must be paid under AS 09.19, and counsel shall be appointed under:AS JS.85.100 to rep_resent the appµcant., ~- . \·i . .. •! , , .

. ~ ST, §;' ;t2. 73 •. 0:2.9 Sec. 12. 73.020. Findings reqUired .for post-conviction

DNA' tef)ting, orders. . . . .. The court shall order post-conviction DNA testing of specific

evidence if . , :· ·~· . ;.: · · (1) th~ ~pplic~~t ,was~ coµ.yic~d, pf a felony; ~der~A.S lt~41;

.: (2). the appJieBtnt ~:f:l:d, jf represented,_. th,~ .~ppliqa{\tjs at­.. torney, have submitte~ ·the .affida:v).ts ,req~ired. py, f\S 12.13.0lO(b); . . 1 . ,. • • • 'I : i I 1 ! " . ~ . . .. ,';

(3) :the applica~t·did nqt admit.or:concedei~t 1under oath in an official proceeding for the offense th~t was· the basis of

127

§ 4:44 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

the conviction or a· lesser included offense, except that the court, in the interest of justice, ·may waive this requirement; ·

·for-the purposes of this paragraph, the entry of a guilty or nolo contendere plea is. not an admission or concession of guilt; '.

(4) the evidence either (A) was not subjected .to· DNA.testing; or

· (B) was previously subjected to DNA testing, and (i) the applicant is . requesting DNA testing using a

method· or technology that isc substantially more proba­tive than the previous DNA testing;. or. :

(ii) ·the court determines that granting the application is in the best interest ·of justice;

(5) the evidence to'be teste'd has been subject to a chain of custody ang retained under conditi<ins· that ensure that the ,evidence has not been substituted, ·coritaminat~d, or altered ''in any manner materfal to the' proposed DNA ~esting;,

(6) th~ p~oposed DNA te13ting 1.s reasonable in scope, uses scientifically· sound methods, and is consistent with accepted forensic practice$; : · · · . . . .

1 • • ·

(7) the applicant identifies a theory of defense that would . establish the applicant'~ .innocence; . . ·

(8) the applicant.wa~ convicted after a trial and the identity of the perpetrator .w~~ ~ disputed issue in the trial;

(~) th.e proposed DNA testing of th~ specific evidence may produce new material evidence tl_lat wo\lld

·(A) support the theory of' defense described ·in (7) of this section; and · · (B) raise a reasonable· probability that the applicant did not commit the offense;: . . . . . . . (10) the applicant consents to provide· a DNA sample for

purposes of compariso.n and to entcy of the results ihto the DNA identification registration system under AS 44.41.035 and into any other law enforcement database; and

(11) the application is timely as descnbed in AS 12. 73.040.

AK ST § 12. 73.030

· ·Sec. 12. 73.030. Summary dismissal and response. :(a) If ail application under AS 12. 73.0lO(a:) does not set out

the specific facts necessary for the ·court -to make the tfildings required under AS 12. 73.020 or does not comply with AS

· · 12. 73.0lO(b), the court· shall ·deny the. application without fur­ther proceedings.

128

.Al.AsKA § 4:44

(b) .If an application filed.under AS 12.73.0lO(a) is not.d~nied under (a) of -this section, ,the prosecuting authority .shall file a

. response within 4·5 days :after service of the application. The .court shall. conduct an.evidentiary hearing to .resolve· any

(. disputed facts.',

AK ST § 12. 73.040 Sec.· 12. 7S.040. Timelliiess.

ln det~rmiµiµg w.hether ~n applicatio:µ is timely under AS 12. 7~·.0?0(l~),. th~re is a pr_e~umption of · . .

· (il} .timeliness: if; the_ application is filed .before. three years · after the· date of conviction;· this presumption.·may be rebut­

ted if the court finds that the application is.based solely,upon information used in a previously denied application; and

(2) untimeliness if the application is filed three years or :qiore after. convictio~; this presumption_ may,_be r~butted if the court finds good cause for filing three years. or more after conviction. · · · · · ·

.. AK S~j 12. 73.050 ,.\\

Sec. 12. 73.050 •. · Testing procedures. (a) If the court grants· the application and DNA samples: for

comparison purposes are required, samples taken from the ap­plicant or a prisoner must be collected at a law enforcement or correctional facility. If the DNA sample is being collect.ed. from a person .othe,r than the applicant or a· prisoner, the sample must be taken by a law enforcement officer or ·other authorized person at a location that' is conve.nient for the.: pereon from whom the .. sample is being collected and the person collecting the ·sample.

(b). The court may, not order. that a person other than the ap­plicant ·P!Ovide- a DNA ~ampl~ for comparisQn· purposes ·unless th8:t person is firs,t afforded nptice a;nd an OP.portuniFY to be h~a~d by the cou;rt. The ;results of DNA testing of a sample provided by a person other than the applicant m'ay not'be made available to the DNA identification· registration ·system under AS 44.41.035 or to any other law enforcement database unless specifically ordered by the court. . _ . . ..

(c) DNA testing ordered under this section shall be performed at the state's expense and at a laboratory operated or approved by the Department of Public Safety. If, after completion of the testing ordered under this section, an applicant requests ad­ditional testing, any additional testing ordered by the court at the applicant's request must be at the applicant's expense. If the court orders additional testing by another laboratory at the

129

§ 4:'44 - STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

'i'irequest·.of. the applicant, the laboratory operitted .or·:approved , by. tlie ·Department of Public Safety shall· preserve a· portion• of

· 1 the 1 evidence: for later testing. Alabor.atory sel~cted 'by. the ·ap­plicant to perform testing under :this section' must' comply. with the quality assurance standards for DNA adopted·~by the:tJ:nited States Department of Justice and be accredited by the Ameri­can Society of Crime ·Laboratory Directors Laboratory Ac-1creditation Board or accepted as equival.~~i by ,~Q.f .Pe»~xµe,nt

.. of Public Safety. . . · : · 1 ... - ·' • · .··: • '· .. • •

4',;,.:· · _) •

, - f . , , . I , - , • '( -. t , . ... ,- • ~ , ' . '"'1 f'" ~.

· (d) Except· ·as provided in (b) of this.:section; the ·results of testing ordered under this··s·ectfon shall be .. enteredt1nto ·the

· · ·DNA identification registration system under .AS· 44Al.0.85 and · 1into any· other . .law· enforcement.: database :1a\1iailable· to the

· Depmmen1rof:Publfo:Safety. ...... · ,·,-., ·· · 1

· · 'sec. 12.78.060~ · Post-coriVictiOn testing' tif1~tipwatiqn. · ' · · The p~ovisions of this ·chapter do ·not proliiliit ari ~pplicant and the prosecuting authority from agreeing to' cori.duct· j>ost­conviction DNA testing without. the person's filing an applica­tion under this chapter. The parties may also stipulate to the payment of costs for thei•DNA.te~ting and othe:n_qclsts aseoci-;ated ~it~ t~~ ter,ms ~f the .agreement .. , ·; ( . . , . . ~

, ! ~ ' I • ~ ' ' \ • • I ' • &

AK ST ,§. 12. 78.090 . . ' ... · . 1 ~; . . "'

· ,Sec.12.'78.090• · -Definitions. · li' · : ·

'In ,t~s, clii;tpter, unless .the· c~nt~xt reqUire~ o~h~ryVi~~' · ' :. " • ( I • " ' • l • • ' • - • , ~ I 1 •. ; • ' :- ' . ·.- ·; ' • ,~·· I 1

. (1) ;"DNA'~ m~al,ls fleo~bonuc~~~9 a~a;·. . .· , .,~·~, :; . . _. (2). ~~i'nnocence" means that the .applicanbwas :not a

perpetrator of or an accomplice to the offenge ·or· lesser : included offense for which the applicant was convicted; · . i' · ·' · (3) ··"prisoner" has the meaning' giye·ri -fo!:t\S. &3~30.901; ' :

.·i · ·: .c~t~~pncq~ditio~~ly ~i.sch:~¢~W')~eai\~j;~a~ a. .. Ci~~e~4~rit is released from all disability ansmg under a sentence, mciud­

··1·: 'wg pro~a~on ~d-~arole.: .'. · '. . '-' .. _:'.'.. . · ... _ .·-. .... ·i· :·· .·.

: • ~ • ; • J ' t ~

~ .~:4~ "( ~~~111:eo~~- c~~victiorit(~~t<~ _.::,, ~; < • . I ' , • , t .' ; : 1

,-, •

t. ·Alaska does:not· have· an. erroneous. convictions -act. .· : : · • . . · ; , _, ,.... · · ,,. ., ~ t 1 ~ • • • i · ~ _. : · ·. _:

·' ' , I .. ~ '

;·. , ~ I ~ ,

1 •- I ·._j ,· ' J ... . ~ ' .- : : ~ ; ' . •. .. l'.,; I .,

130

. " . '