Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-9915.
April 29, 2009.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Douglas Blankenship, Judge, and Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Jack W. Smith, Judge, Trial Court No. 4FA-07-1110 CI.
Daniel C. Lewis, pro se, Eloy, Arizona, Appellant.
Scott L. Mattern, Assistant District Attorney, Fairbanks, and Talis J. Colberg, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Bolger, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Daniel C. Lewis was convicted in the Fairbanks superior court of several charges arising from his act of shooting a hole through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in 2001. This court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal.
Lewis v. State, Alaska App. Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 5169 (Jan. 31, 2007), 2007 WL 293079.
While his appeal was pending, Lewis filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Anchorage superior court along with two other petitioners, Larry L. Lewis and Dillan Hodges, case number 3AN-06-8055 CI. On the State's motion, Superior Court Judge Jack W. Smith transferred this petition to the Fairbanks superior court for processing as an application for post-conviction relief. The case was re-numbered as 4FA-07-1110 CI and assigned to Superior Court Judge Douglas Blankenship.
Meanwhile, Lewis filed a separate petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Fairbanks, apparently in response to the order issued by the Anchorage court. The Fairbanks court assigned the petition to Fairbanks Superior Court Judge pro tempore Jane F. Kauvar under case number 4FA-07-1122 CI.
By September 2007, each of the three petitioners in case number 4FA-07-1110 CI had a separate, individual case pending before the Fairbanks court. Judge Blankenship then closed case 4FA-07-1110 CI on the theory that the court could not hear the three unrelated petitions in the same case. But Lewis's underlying substantive claims remained pending before Judge Kauvar in case 4FA-07-1122 CI.
Lewis filed this appeal from Judge Blankenship's final order dismissing case number 4FA-07-1110 CI. The dismissal of 4FA-07-1110 CI allows Lewis to appeal procedural actions taken in that case; thus, Lewis may pursue his claim that it was error to convert his petition for a writ of habeas corpus to an application for post-conviction relief. But Lewis's underlying substantive claims have not yet been resolved. Instead, they remain pending in case number 4FA-07-1122 CI, and this appeal does not involve Lewis's substantive attacks on his criminal conviction. We therefore do not express any opinion on those substantive claims.
See AS 22.07.020; Alaska R. App. P. 202(b); Hanby v. State, 479 P.2d 486, 488-89 (Alaska 1970) ("It has . . . been our avowed policy to almost always require cases to proceed to final judgment before review may be had . . . as of right.").
Lewis argues that Judge Smith erred when he converted Lewis's petition for a writ of habeas corpus to an application for post-conviction relief and changed the venue from Anchorage to Fairbanks. In support of this argument, Lewis raises a number of claims that he intended to pursue in his habeas petition. For instance, Lewis claims that the appointment of counsel under AS 18.85.100 (the Public Defender Agency statute) and AS 44.21.410 (the Office of Public Advocacy statute) creates conflicts of interest that violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Lewis also claims that because of these purported conflicts of interest, when he accepted appointed counsel he was effectively forced to waive his rights to conflict-free representation and to pursue a writ of habeas corpus without making a knowing and intelligent decision regarding his constitutional rights. Furthermore, Lewis claims that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his criminal case because compliance with the Sixth Amendment is a jurisdictional prerequisite. Finally, Lewis claims that the trial judge assigned to his original criminal case was biased and that she made several mistakes during his sentencing hearing.
Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1(a)(1) allows a person to bring a proceeding for post-conviction relief on the basis "that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the [C]onstitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of Alaska." All of the foregoing claims allege that Lewis's conviction or sentence violated the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of the State of Alaska. Thus, all of the claims that Lewis wanted to pursue in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus could have been brought in an application of post-conviction relief.
Alaska Civil Rule 86(m) describes the procedure that must be followed for a habeas petition that could have been filed as an application for post-conviction relief:
This rule does not apply to any post-conviction proceeding that could be brought under Criminal Rule 35.1. The court shall treat such a complaint as an application for post-conviction relief under Criminal Rule 35.1 and, if necessary, transfer the application to the court of appropriate jurisdiction for proceedings under that rule.
Under this rule, when a petitioner asserts claims in a habeas petition that could have been brought in an application for post-conviction relief, a court is required to treat the petition as an application for post-conviction relief. As noted above, all of Lewis's claims could have been included in an application for post-conviction relief. Therefore, Judge Smith correctly transferred the case to the superior court in Fairbanks for processing as an application for post-conviction relief.
See Hertz v. State, 8 P.3d 1144, 1147 (Alaska App. 2000).
We therefore AFFIRM the superior court's judgment.