Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-9868.
January 30, 2008.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Niesje J. Steinkruger, Judge, Trial Court No. 4FA-95-3885 CR.
Robert E. Duyck, pro se, Red Rock CorrectionalCenter, Arizona. Diane L. Wendlandt, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, 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
In 1996, Robert E. Duyck pled no contest to murder in the second degree.
AS 11.41.110(a)(2).
In November 2006, ten years after his conviction, Duyck filed a motion to void the grand jury indictment. He relied on Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(4). In his motion, Duyck asserted that the indictment was obtained in violation of Alaska Criminal Rule 6(r)(3), which provides an explanation of when hearsay evidence, presented by a peace officer involved in the investigation, may be admitted into evidence before the grand jury. Duyck's argument appears to be that Alaska Criminal Rule 6(r)(3) requires additional evidence to be introduced to the grand jury to corroborate any hearsay evidence presented by the peace officer. Duyck claimed that District Attorney Harry Davis and Fairbanks Police Officer Aaron Ring not only presented hearsay evidence to the grand jury that was uncorroborated, but also that the hearsay statements were negligent misstatements or omissions that prejudiced and violated his substantive rights under the Alaska Constitution and the United States Constitution. Duyck concludes that Alaska Criminal Rule 6(r)(4) requires that the court dismiss the indictment. Additionally, Duyck argues that the report prepared by the Alaska Department of Public Safety Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory exonerated him of the crime and therefore the State was required to present this evidence to the grand jury as exculpatory evidence. Superior Court Judge Niesje J. Steinkruger denied the motion.
Why we affirm Judge Steinkruger's decision
"It is a well established rule that in the circumstance where a defendant, who is adequately represented by counsel, voluntarily and knowingly pleads guilty [or no contest], this act constitutes a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defenses." The kind of claim that Duyck raised, an assertion that the State presented improper hearsay to the grand jury and failed to present exculpatory evidence, is the kind of non-jurisdictional defense that is considered waived after a defendant, adequately represented by counsel, knowingly and voluntarily enters a plea of guilty or no contest. AFFIRMED.
Thompson v. State, 426 P.2d 995, 999 (Alaska 1967) (citations omitted). Judge Mannheimer has clarified this rule by stating that "a defendant who pleads guilty does not `waive' non-jurisdictional claims. Rather, the defendant's guilty plea renders all non-jurisdictional claims `irrelevant to the constitutionality of his [criminal] conviction.'" Stough v. State, Alaska App. Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 4260 at 14 (Aug. 9, 2000), 2000 WL 1124506 at *7 (Mannheimer, J., concurring) (quoting Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 322, 103 S. Ct. 2368, 2377, 76 L. Ed. 2d 595 (1983)).