CRIMINAL LAW
Peter Graham
In Collins v. State, 494 P.3d 60 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the Court of Appeals held that the 2013 session law amending the provisions of AS 12.55.125 to establish significantly higher presumptive sentencing ranges for offenders convicted of sexual felonies was a clarification rather than a modification of the statute; therefore, there were no ex post facto concerns when applying the session law to a defendant’s conviction for a felony that had taken place prior to the session law. (Id. at 65). Collins was convicted in the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer of first-degree sexual assault. (Id. at 63). The Court of Appeals determined that Collins was entitled by statute to have his case referred to a three-judge sentencing panel. (Id.). The Alaska legislature later enacted a session law disavowing the Court of Appeals’ statutory interpretation. (Id.). On remand, the lower court then denied Collins’s request for a referral to a sentencing panel. (Id. at 64). Collins appealed, arguing that because his crime was committed before the session law was enacted, the ex post facto clauses in the state and federal constitution prohibited courts from applying the session law to his case. (Id.). The Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of clarifying legislation, taking note of the existence of reasonable debate regarding the interpretation of the pre-existing law, as well as the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the session law. (Id at 69–70). On these grounds, the court concluded that the session law was a clarification of the law that existed at the time the crime was committed and therefore could be applied to the defendant’s case without triggering ex post facto concerns. (Id.).
