From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska
Nov 26, 2008
Court of Appeals No. A-10081 (Alaska Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2008)

Opinion

Court of Appeals No. A-10081.

November 26, 2008.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Stephanie E. Joannides, Judge, Trial Court No. 3AN-05-5784 CI.

George J. Dozier Jr., Eagle River, for the Appellant.

Timothy W. Terrell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT


Robert O'Neal Davis appeals the superior court's dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief. In his underlying criminal case, Davis was convicted of four counts of third-degree misconduct involving a controlled substance. We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. Thereafter, Davis filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney.

Davis v. State, Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 4899 (Alaska App., August 4, 2004); 2004 WL 1737546.

The superior court dismissed this application, ruling that Davis should have raised his ineffectiveness claims in his direct appeal, and that these claims were therefore waived.

In this appeal, both Davis and the State agree that the superior court committed error when it ruled that Davis should have raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his direct appeal. We concur in the parties' assessment. In Barry v. State, we held that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel normally cannot be heard on direct appeal and must be raised in an application for post-conviction relief — because usually, the record of the defendant's trial is inadequate to resolve such claims.

675 P.2d 1292 (Alaska App. 1984).

Id. at 1295.

The superior court believed that our decision in Grinols v. State, however, requires a defendant to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. That is a misreading of Grinols. Grinols involved a second application for post-conviction relief: when we spoke of Grinols's failure to raise his claims of ineffective assistance in a previous appeal, we were speaking of an appeal from the denial of his first application for post-conviction relief, and not a direct appeal of his conviction.

10 P.3d 600 (Alaska App. 2000).

Id. at 604.

The judgment of the superior court is REVERSED. We remand this case to the superior court for further proceedings on Davis's application for post-conviction relief.


Summaries of

Davis v. State

Court of Appeals of Alaska
Nov 26, 2008
Court of Appeals No. A-10081 (Alaska Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2008)
Case details for

Davis v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT O'NEAL DAVIS, Appellant v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Alaska

Date published: Nov 26, 2008

Citations

Court of Appeals No. A-10081 (Alaska Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2008)