02 Mar Alaska Supreme & Appellate Court Headnotes From 2.17.2017
Featured Case: Family Law | Marital Property | Equitable Distribution
HORNING, APPELLANT, V. HORNING, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court
The trial court’s decision to consider each spouse’s healthcare eligibility as an equal benefit with respect to marital distribution was incorrect because it classified wife’s healthcare eligibility as marital property instead of separate property.
Family law – Divorce – Marital property – Separate property – Equitable distribution
Alaska Supreme Court Headnotes
HORNING, APPELLANT, V. HORNING, APPELLEE. Alaska Supreme Court
Because trial court based its decision to deny wife’s request for costs on an improper classification of marital and separate property, the trial court’s decision to deny wife’s motion for expert costs was vacated and remanded.
Family law – Divorce – Request for costs
Alaska Courts of Appeals Headnotes
DARIEN LAMAR JETER, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
When a defendant currently on probation who commits a new crime such that a new sentence is imposed in addition to probation revocation, all of the sentences do not necessarily need to be viewed as one composite sentence. Additionally, the defendant may appeal each sentence individually.
Criminal law – Sentencing – Composite sentence – Probation revocation
DENNIS OLSON, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
In deciding the merits of defendant’s necessity defense for violating a protective order, the trial court’s refusal to redact portions of restraining order imposed against was harmless error because sufficient jury instructions were provided.
Criminal law – Protective order – Necessity defense – Harmless error
FRANK LEWIS ADAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not violated, even if police questioned him in violation of the Edwards rule because defendant initiated the conversation and it was not tainted by any prior Edwards violation.
Criminal law – Edwards rule – Sixth Amendment – Right to counsel
FRANK LEWIS ADAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Even though defendant had been appointed legal representation for non-murder charges, defendant’s constitutional right to counsel was not violated with respect to unrelated murder charge when police questioned defendant without obtaining defendant’s attorney’s consent.
Criminal law – Miranda rule – Sixth Amendment – Right to counsel
FRANK LEWIS ADAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Defendant waived his right to argue on appeal that his statements were made in violation of Miranda when he failed to raise that argument at trial.
Criminal law – Miranda rule – Waiver of suppression claim
FRANK LEWIS ADAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Defendant’s statement not found to be made involuntarily despite being made while drunk, injured in car crash and subjected to pepper spray and Taser, because police conduct was not coercive and even if it was, there must be evidence that the defendant’s will was overcome, which it was not.
Criminal law – Involuntary statements
FRANK LEWIS ADAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Defense counsel’s decision not to raise the confrontation clause objection at trial was not the result of attorney incompetence because most of the expert witness’ testimony would have been admissible anyways even if the confrontation clause objection had been timely raised.
Criminal law – Ineffectiveness of counsel – Confrontation clause
FRANK LEWIS ADAMS, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Based on defendant’s history of violence and unlikeliness he could be rehabilitated, the trial court’s decision not to allow defendant to apply for discretionary parole was supported by the record and not in error.
Criminal law – Excessive sentence
RONALD F. WYATT, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
Defendant’s second application for post-conviction relief was incorrectly dismissed because defendant set forth a prima facie argument that his attorney in his first application for post-conviction relief was incompetent because the attorney abandoned a litigable claim for a meritless one.
Criminal law – Right to testify at trial – Post-conviction relief – Ineffective assistance of counsel
RONALD F. WYATT, APPELLANT, V. STATE OF ALASKA, APPELLEE. Alaska Court of Appeals
A defendant’s post-conviction relief request may not include issues that were raised, or could have been raised, during defendant’s direct appeal of the convictions.