CRIMINAL LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Scott Tompetrini
In Amarok v. State, 543 P.3d 259 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals did not to overrule prior cases that outlined rules for remanding cases when a convicted defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel from their post-conviction relief attorney. (Id. at 261). Amarok was convicted of murder and subsequently filed an application for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. (Id.). The lower court dismissed the application, finding that Amarok had not stated a prima facie case. (Id.). On appeal, Amarok argued he was entitled to a remand because the representation of his post-conviction attorney was also deficient. (Id.). The State argued a remand was not the proper remedy. (Id.). Furthermore, the State called for the court of appeals to overrule two cases cited by Amarok, Tazruk v. State, 67 P.3d 687 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003) and Demoski v. State, 449 P.3d 348 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). Amarok, 543 P.3d at 261. The Tazruk and Demoski standard states that applicants for post-conviction relief are entitled to a remand if their application was “plainly deficient on its face.” (Id. at 263). The court of appeals opted not to overrule these precedents, finding that they complemented the existing test for ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. at 265). The court also reiterated its approval of a remand being the proper remedy under Tazruk and Demoski, rather that forcing the defendant to file an additional application for post-conviction relief. (Id. at 267). Nonetheless, in this case the court found that Amarok received adequate representation in his application. (Id. at 265). Despite some minor factual inaccuracies, there was nothing in the application that was facially deficient to meet the Tazruk and Demoski standards. (Id.). Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the application and held that Amarok was not entitled to a remand. (Id. at 268).
