In Alaska Public Defender Agency v. Superior court,[1] the supreme court held that neither the Public Defender Agency (Agency) nor the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) were statutorily required to pay the costs of an indigent juvenile who is unable to afford the travel expenses to his adjudication trial. J.B., a juvenile facing delinquency charges for a third-degree assault, was unable to pay for travel expenses from his location in Marshall to his adjudication trial in Bethel. His Agency attorney subsequently moved for an order requiring DJJ or the court to pay the travel-related expenses. The superior court denied the motion. On appeal, the court of appeals interpreted the Agency’s authorizing statute as requiring the cost of transporting the defendant to the site of their trial among necessary services for which the Agency must pay, and subsequently affirmed the denial of the motion. The supreme court reversed. The court concluded that neither the language, legislative history, nor legislative purpose of the Agency’s authorizing statute require it to pay expenses of an indigent juvenile to travel to the site of an adjudication hearing. Further, the court held that the Attorney General opinions and OPA regulations on the matter were not particularly relevant. Finally, the court held that the DJJ was likewise not required by statute to pay the indigent juvenile’s travel expenses. Reversing the court of appeals’ denial of the motion, the court held that neither the Agency nor the DJJ were required to pay the juvenile’s travel expenses, and left the task of determining payment responsibility to the legislative or executive branches.
[1] 450 P.3d 246 (Alaska 2019).
