Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11475 No. 6138
01-28-2015
OWEN W. KEIPER, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Owen W. Keiper, pro se, Wasilla, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Michael C. Geraghty, 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. 3AN-12-9267 CI t/w 1KE-89-1310 CR, 1KE-92-615 CR, & 1KE-97-1420 CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Kevin M. Saxby, Judge. Appearances: Owen W. Keiper, pro se, Wasilla, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and Michael C. Geraghty, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, Judge, and Hanley, District Court Judge. PER CURIAM.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Owen W. Keiper filed a petition for habeas corpus in Anchorage superior court, challenging the validity of his various criminal convictions from the 1980s and 1990s. The superior court converted Keiper's habeas petition into a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to its authority under Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1 and AS 12.72.010-.040. After giving Keiper an opportunity to amend his habeas petition to comply with the requirements under Criminal Rule 35.1, the court dismissed Keiper's petition without prejudice.
See Fisher v. State, 315 P.3d 686 (Alaska App. 2013) (when a criminal defendant files a habeas corpus petition that raises claims that could be brought under Criminal Rule 35.1, the court is required to convert the petition into an application for post-conviction relief under Alaska Civil Rule 86(m)).
See id.
--------
On appeal, Keiper argues that the superior court erred in converting his habeas petition to a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting that he raised various "jurisdictional issues" that could only be resolved through a habeas corpus petition. We find no merit to this claim.
We have reviewed Keiper's pleadings in the superior court, and we agree with the superior court's conclusion that Keiper's claims are all claims that could have been raised either on direct appeal or in an application for post-conviction relief.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the superior court's judgment.