Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-9718.
May 14, 2008.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Eric A. Aarseth, Judge, Trial Court No. 3AN-05-9030 Cr.
Ronnie Johnson, pro se, Anchorage, for Appellant. Douglas H. Kossler, 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
Ronnie Johnson was convicted of forgery in the second degree, a class C felony, and theft in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. In a court trial, Superior Court Judge Eric A. Aarseth found Johnson guilty of both offenses. But Judge Aarseth found that Johnson's convictions merged and sentenced Johnson on only the conviction for forgery in the second degree. Johnson appeals from this conviction.
AS 11.46.505(a)(1), (b).
AS 11.46.130(a)(1), (c); AS 11.31.100(a), (d)(5).
Johnson represented himself in the superior court, but he nevertheless has a right to counsel on appeal. We therefore previously ordered the superior court to determine whether Johnson wanted to assert or waive his right to counsel on appeal. Johnson twice failed to appear for representation hearings in the superior court. In a single-judge order, this court concluded that Johnson had waived his right to court-appointed counsel.
Johnson is representing himself in this appeal. We rejected his first brief for filing, concluding that his arguments were so inadequately briefed that "we cannot understand his arguments, much less resolve them." We directed Johnson to file a new brief and directed him to explain the legal and factual bases for his claims of error.
Johnson submitted a second brief. It consists of a single page of cursory statements. The State opposed acceptance of Johnson's brief. But we accepted Johnson's second brief.
In its brief, the State points out that Johnson's brief is inadequate to determine what errors Johnson is claiming and that his brief provides no support for any claim. The State argues that Johnson has waived any claim of error through inadequate briefing. But the State goes on to make a diligent effort to address the possible claims that Johnson might be raising. We believe that we should do the same.
See Tuttle v. State, 65 P.3d 884, 887 n. 6 (Alaska App. 2002).
In his first point on appeal, Johnson claims "Perjury by Imalda Marcos." It seems apparent that this is a claim that Imelda Ramos, the teller to whom Johnson presented the forged check, did not give credible testimony. But Judge Aarseth was the fact finder in this case, and it was his duty to determine whether the witnesses were credible. Johnson has not given us any reason to question Judge Aarseth's finding that Ramos was a credible witness.
Johnson makes other statements in his brief to the effect that there was an "ongoing investigation" and that he was not the primary suspect. It appears that Johnson is referring to the fact that two other people, whom Johnson identified, gave him the check. In his allocution at sentencing, Johnson complained that these two other people, whom he claimed actually stole the check that he presented to the bank, were never charged. But the fact that Johnson did not personally steal the check was not a defense to the forgery charge.
Therefore, the only claims that Johnson raises that we are able to decipher have no merit. To the extent that Johnson is attempting to raise other claims, we are simply unable to determine what those claims are. We must reject those claims as an inadequately briefed.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.