Opinion
Court of Appeals No. A-11316 Trial Court No. 3PA-12-1510 CI t/w 3PA-09-2426 CR No. 6029
02-26-2014
SIEGFRIED PEDERSEN, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Appearances: Siegfried Pedersen, pro se, Wasilla, for the Appellant. Mary A. Gilson, 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.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Kari Kristiansen, Judge.
Appearances: Siegfried Pedersen, pro se, Wasilla, for the Appellant. Mary A. Gilson, 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.
Sitting by assignment made pursuant to article IV, section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
Judge HANLEY.
The State charged Siegfried Pedersen with numerous weapons and assault crimes in two Palmer cases: 3PA-09-2426 CR and 3PA-10-179 CR. The cases were joined for a jury trial before Superior Court Judge pro tem William Estelle. The jury convicted Pedersen of felony offenses arising from both cases.
Pedersen filed an application for post-conviction relief, which he amended in 2011. The application was assigned to Judge Estelle. While this application was pending, Pedersen filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was assigned to Superior Court Judge Kari Kristiansen. Judge Kristiansen correctly converted the habeas petition into a petition for post-conviction relief. Then, aware of the pending post-conviction relief application before Judge Estelle, Judge Kristiansen dismissed the converted petition with prejudice, concluding that Pedersen was not permitted to seek the same relief in two separate cases. Pedersen filed a motion for the court to reconsider its order of dismissal, asserting that he was not raising the same claims for relief in both cases. The superior court denied this motion. Pedersen now appeals the dismissal of his second pleading.
From the record before us, it is unclear whether Judge Kristiansen denied Pedersen's motion for reconsideration because (1) she rejected Pedersen's contention that he had raised different claims for relief in his second petition, or (2) she simply concluded that it was impermissible for Pedersen to pursue two petitions at once.
We agree that Pedersen should not have been allowed to pursue two separate petitions for post-conviction relief in front of two separate judges. But at the time of Judge Kristiansen's ruling, Pedersen's first petition was still pending in front of Judge Estelle. The proper action for Judge Kristiansen to take, at that point, was to transfer Pedersen's second petition to Judge Estelle — so that Judge Estelle could evaluate the claims raised in that second petition and, if appropriate, allow Pedersen to amend his first petition to include any new claims. That way, all of Pedersen's claims would be presented to Judge Estelle in one unified petition.
We accordingly VACATE the superior court's order dismissing Pedersen's second petition, and we REMAND this case to the superior court for renewed consideration of Pedersen's claims in conformity with this opinion.