Amarok v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Douglas v. State

    No. A-14037 (Alaska Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2024)

    Amarok v. State, 543 P.3d 259, 261, 265 (Alaska App. 2024).

  2. Avras v. State

    No. A-13535 (Alaska Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2024)

    But these circumstances are limited to "cases where the application appears to be facially deficient and the attorney fails to offer 'any substantive explanation for why the application is not facially deficient.'"Amarok v. State, 543 P.3d 259, 262-63 (Alaska App. 2024).

  3. McCloud v. State

    No. A-13870 (Alaska Ct. App. May. 1, 2024)

    As we explained in Demoski, and as we recently reaffirmed in Amarok v. State, our focus in such cases has been on: "(1) whether the application before the court was 'plainly deficient on its face'; (2) whether the attorney 'sought to defend' the application; and (3) whether the record revealed that the attorney had 'investigated or analyzed the petitioner's claims or potential claims.'"Amarok v. State, 543 P.3d 259, 263 (Alaska App. 2024) (quoting Demoski, 449 P.3d at 350).