Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11919 No. 6414
12-21-2016
DALE JERRY HENRY ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Jane B. Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Donald Soderstrom, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
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 authority for any proposition of law. Trial Court No. 3DI-11-41 CI
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Dillingham, Patricia L. Douglass, Judge. Appearances: Jane B. Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, LLC, under contract with the Public Defender Agency, and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Donald Soderstrom, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Suddock, Superior Court Judge. PER CURIAM.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Dale Jerry Henry Andrews appeals the dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief. He argues that the superior court erred in dismissing his application sua sponte without first giving him notice of — and an opportunity to correct — any deficiencies in the application. The State concedes error, and we find the concession to be well-founded.
See Marks v. State, 496 P.2d 66, 67-68 (Alaska 1972) (explaining that an appellate court has an independent duty to ensure that a concession "is supported by the record on appeal and has legal foundation").
In Hampton v. Huston, we explained that a superior court may sua sponte dismiss an application for post-conviction relief only after certain procedural steps are followed:
Where the court elects to consider a petition summarily, it must give advance warning of its decision to the parties in a written order spelling out in some detail its reasons for concluding that the petition warrants summary disposition. Specifically, the applicant must be given an opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal before it becomes final.Here, the superior court sua sponte dismissed Andrews's application without first giving notice to the parties and without providing Andrews with an opportunity to respond.
Hampton v. Huston, 653 P.2d 1058, 1060 (Alaska App. 1982). --------
We accordingly REVERSE the judgment of the superior court.