Main Menu

Mollica v. State

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sloane Bessey

In Mollica v. State, 500 P.3d 1002 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court held that when a defendant faces termination from a therapeutic court program, he or she is entitled to due process protections including written notice concerning the grounds for discharge, disclosure of the relevant evidence, and the chance to be heard to rebut the evidence and offer defenses or mitigating information. (Id. at 1015). In 2013 Robert Joel Mollica II pled guilty to a second-degree robbery and then in 2016, after two probation violations and a second criminal charge, he entered a plea agreement that required him to enter and complete the Palmer Wellness Court. (Id. at 1005). The Palmer Wellness Court is a therapeutic court and if he completed the program his probation would be terminated and his sentence for his second criminal charge would remain suspended. (Id. at 1006). Two months after starting at the Wellness Court Mollica was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend and, after the therapeutic court team used its discretion to allow him to remain in the program, he left his transitional housing program and was arrested and charged with a criminal trespass. (Id. at 1007–08). Following a hearing where Mollica and his counsel spoke, the court announced its decision that he should be discharged from the program. (Id. at 1008–09). Mollica appealed the decision and alleged that his due process rights were violated by a failure of the court to provide adequate notice of the allegations against him as well as a failure of the court to provide him with a meaningful hearing. (Id. at 1010). The court noted that there is a lack of relevant Alaska case law in this area, but that appellate courts in other states have found that participants in therapeutic court programs are entitled to due process rights similar to those of parolees and probationers. (Id. at 1010). The court emphasized that the due process rights in such termination proceedings are more flexible and a failure to comply with one of them does not automatically mean that the decision must be reversed. (Id. at 1012). Here, the court concluded that Mollica received the required due process protections. (Id. at 1015). The court of appeals affirmed Mollica’s termination from the Wellness Court, holding that when a defendant faces termination from a therapeutic court program, he or she is entitled to due process protections including written notice concerning the grounds for discharge, disclosure of the relevant evidence, and the chance to be heard to rebut the evidence and offer defenses or mitigating information. (Id. at 1015).

Mollica v. State

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Sloane Bessey

In Mollica v. State, 500 P.3d 1002 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court held that when a defendant faces termination from a therapeutic court program, he or she is entitled to due process protections including written notice concerning the grounds for discharge, disclosure of the relevant evidence, and the chance to be heard to rebut the evidence and offer defenses or mitigating information. (Id. at 1015). In 2013 Robert Joel Mollica II pled guilty to a second-degree robbery and then in 2016, after two probation violations and a second criminal charge, he entered a plea agreement that required him to enter and complete the Palmer Wellness Court. (Id. at 1005). The Palmer Wellness Court is a therapeutic court and if he completed the program his probation would be terminated and his sentence for his second criminal charge would remain suspended. (Id. at 1006). Two months after starting at the Wellness Court Mollica was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend and, after the therapeutic court team used its discretion to allow him to remain in the program, he left his transitional housing program and was arrested and charged with a criminal trespass. (Id. at 1007–08). Following a hearing where Mollica and his counsel spoke, the court announced its decision that he should be discharged from the program. (Id. at 1008–09). Mollica appealed the decision and alleged that his due process rights were violated by a failure of the court to provide adequate notice of the allegations against him as well as a failure of the court to provide him with a meaningful hearing. (Id. at 1010). The court noted that there is a lack of relevant Alaska case law in this area, but that appellate courts in other states have found that participants in therapeutic court programs are entitled to due process rights similar to those of parolees and probationers. (Id. at 1010). The court emphasized that the due process rights in such termination proceedings are more flexible and a failure to comply with one of them does not automatically mean that the decision must be reversed. (Id. at 1012). Here, the court concluded that Mollica received the required due process protections. (Id. at 1015). The court of appeals affirmed Mollica’s termination from the Wellness Court, holding that when a defendant faces termination from a therapeutic court program, he or she is entitled to due process protections including written notice concerning the grounds for discharge, disclosure of the relevant evidence, and the chance to be heard to rebut the evidence and offer defenses or mitigating information. (Id. at 1015).