Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-10078.
September 30, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Patrick J. McKay, Judge, Trial Court No. 3AN-02-6980 CR.
Dan Lowery, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Douglas H. Kossler, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Richard A. Svobodny, Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
NOTICE
Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding precedent for any proposition of law.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Peter L. Andrews entered a plea of no contest to a single count of murder in the first degree as part of a plea agreement. The parties agreed that the State would dismiss several other felony charges, that Andrews would receive a sentence of 99 years' imprisonment, and that the court would not restrict Andrews's eligibility for discretionary parole. The superior court approved the plea agreement and imposed a sentence of 99 years' imprisonment.
Three years later, Andrews filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Alaska Criminal Rule 35(a). Andrews argued that the sentencing court illegally enhanced his sentence by relying on aggravating factors in violation of Blakely v. Washington. The superior court denied the motion, finding that no aggravating factors were required to support the sentence. Andrews now appeals.
542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 159 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2004).
In his appeal, Andrews raises several issues. First, citing Blakely and Cunningham v. California, Andrews argues that when he was sentenced, the superior court implicitly found that he was a worst offender, and that this finding required a jury trial. (We have previously rejected this argument.) Next, Andrews argues that the sentencing judge approved the maximum 99-year sentence without finding that he was a worst offender. He also submits that the court interfered with his right to self-representation and that he was not competent to enter a plea of no contest. And, in his reply brief, Andrews argues (without any support from the record) that the superior court imposed a mandatory 99-year sentence by illegally relying on the aggravating circumstances in AS 12.55.125(a)(4).
549 U.S. 270, 127 S. Ct. 856, 166 L. Ed. 2d 856 (2007).
See Baker v. State, 182 P.3d 655, 658-59 (Alaska App. 2008); Simon v. State, 121 P.3d 815, 819-820 (Alaska App. 2005); see also McCormack v. State, Alaska App. Memorandum and Judgment No. 5416 (December 24, 2008), 2008 WL 5352364 (confirming Baker after examining Cunningham).
None of these arguments were raised before the sentencing court. As the Alaska Supreme Court recently noted, "It is well established that issues are waived for purposes of appeal if not adequately raised below." Accordingly, we decline to address any of the issues that Andrews now raises for the first time on appeal.
Millette v. Millette, 177 P.3d 258, 267 (Alaska 2008).
We therefore AFFIRM the superior court's order denying Andrews's Rule 35(a) motion.