CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2024)
Brendan Genaw
In Dixon v. State, 553 P.3d 1273 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals held that a criminal defendant has the right to be physically present in the courtroom for a restitution hearing under the United States Constitution, the Alaska Constitution, and Alaska R. Crim. P. 38. (Id. at 1277). Dixon plead guilty to various crimes relating to a theft. (Id. at 1275). This guilty plea was part of a Criminal Rule 11 agreement, and Dixon was sentenced to serve time in prison and ordered to pay restitution to the victims. (Id. at 1276). Dixon’s attorney requested that Dixon be transported from prison to attend the restitution hearings pursuant to Alaska Criminal Rule 38(a)(1), which gives defendants the right to “appear in person at any hearing during which evidence would be presented.” (Id. at 1276). The Department of Public Safety denied the court’s transport request because it considered Dixon to already have been sentenced. (Id. at 1276). During the final day of Dixon’s restitution hearing, Dix and his lawyer both attempted to attend the hearing virtually from prison but encountered various tech and logistical issues. (Id. at 1278). Ultimately, the court of appeals vacated the restitution judgment and remanded for a new restitution hearing concluding that a restitution hearing was part of sentencing procedures; therefore, Dixon has a right to be physically present and challenge the State’s evidence under the United States Constitution, the Alaska Constitution, and Alaska R. Crim. P. 38. (Id. at 1278–79).
