Main Menu

Ray v. State

In Ray v. State,[1] the court of appeals 1) affirmed the superior court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation, 2) held that criminal defendants do not have a constitutional right to refuse further probation, and 3) certified to the supreme court the question of whether criminal defendants have a statutory right to refuse further probation under AS 12.55.090(f). In the summer of 2014, defendant Jason Ray violated the terms of his existing probation by failing to stay at an agreed-upon residence and drinking in excess while visiting Anchorage. At his disposition hearing, defendant elected to reject further probation, instead requesting a flat imprisonment sentence without probation. Instead, the judge decided to keep defendant on unsupervised probation for five years after he finished serving his active sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant asserted that the superior court erred both in initially finding him in violation of his probation and in refusing to accept his rejection of further probation. Regarding defendant’s first assignment of error, the court of appeals ruled that the superior court had sufficient grounds on which to find that defendant violated the conditions of his probation. Next, the court of appeals rejected defendant’s contention that he had a constitutional right to refuse further probation, holding that although that right exists, it is not grounded in the Constitution. The court of appeals panel could not, however, agree on a uniform interpretation of defendant’s statutory right to refuse probation under AS 12.55.090(f). On this issue, each judge came to a different statutory interpretation. Accordingly, after affirming the superior court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation and holding that criminal defendants have no constitutional right to refuse further probation, the court of appeals certified to the supreme court the question of whether criminal defendants have a statutory right to refuse further probation under AS 12.55.090(f).

[1] 452 P.3d 668 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).

Ray v. State

In Ray v. State,[1] the court of appeals 1) affirmed the superior court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation, 2) held that criminal defendants do not have a constitutional right to refuse further probation, and 3) certified to the supreme court the question of whether criminal defendants have a statutory right to refuse further probation under AS 12.55.090(f). In the summer of 2014, defendant Jason Ray violated the terms of his existing probation by failing to stay at an agreed-upon residence and drinking in excess while visiting Anchorage. At his disposition hearing, defendant elected to reject further probation, instead requesting a flat imprisonment sentence without probation. Instead, the judge decided to keep defendant on unsupervised probation for five years after he finished serving his active sentence of imprisonment. On appeal, defendant asserted that the superior court erred both in initially finding him in violation of his probation and in refusing to accept his rejection of further probation. Regarding defendant’s first assignment of error, the court of appeals ruled that the superior court had sufficient grounds on which to find that defendant violated the conditions of his probation. Next, the court of appeals rejected defendant’s contention that he had a constitutional right to refuse further probation, holding that although that right exists, it is not grounded in the Constitution. The court of appeals panel could not, however, agree on a uniform interpretation of defendant’s statutory right to refuse probation under AS 12.55.090(f). On this issue, each judge came to a different statutory interpretation. Accordingly, after affirming the superior court’s decision to revoke defendant’s probation and holding that criminal defendants have no constitutional right to refuse further probation, the court of appeals certified to the supreme court the question of whether criminal defendants have a statutory right to refuse further probation under AS 12.55.090(f).

[1] 452 P.3d 668 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).