Main Menu

Kelila v. State

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2024)
Melinda Xiong

In Kelila v. State, 556 P.3d 284 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals held that granting time spent on electronic monitoring for some crimes but not others, is not an equal protection violation of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 290). A man was arrested following an altercation with his then-girlfriend, and ultimately pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, a felony crime against a person. (Id. at 287). Prior to sentencing, the man requested, under Alaska Statute 12.55.027, credit for the time he had spent on electronic monitoring. (Id.). Despite knowing that he did not qualify for the credit because it excluded defendants who had committed a felony crime against a person, the man argued that denial of this credit to defendants convicted of some types of crimes but not others, violated the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 286, 287). Applying a shorthand analysis of Alaska’s core equal protection test, the superior court rejected his argument. (Id. at 286–87). The man appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by not applying the full three-prong equal protection test. (Id. at 289). The court of appeals held that the superior court had correctly applied the shorthand analysis test because the full analysis may not be necessary when it’s clear that the two groups of people being treated differently are not similarly situated, and are therefore not entitled to equal treatment. (Id. at 288). The court of appeals further held that application of the full equal protection test would lead to the same result – no equal protection violation because defendants convicted of crimes (many of which were violent and dangerous) for which the statute disallowed credit, were not similarly situated to those who had not committed those enumerated crimes. (Id. at 289). Affirming the superior court’s judgment, the court of appeals agreed that AS 12.55.027’s legislative classification of denying electronic monitoring credit to defendants who had committed certain crimes, but granting the credit to defendants who had committed other types of crimes, was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 290).

Kelila v. State

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2024)
Melinda Xiong

In Kelila v. State, 556 P.3d 284 (Alaska Ct. App. 2024), the court of appeals held that granting time spent on electronic monitoring for some crimes but not others, is not an equal protection violation of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 290). A man was arrested following an altercation with his then-girlfriend, and ultimately pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, a felony crime against a person. (Id. at 287). Prior to sentencing, the man requested, under Alaska Statute 12.55.027, credit for the time he had spent on electronic monitoring. (Id.). Despite knowing that he did not qualify for the credit because it excluded defendants who had committed a felony crime against a person, the man argued that denial of this credit to defendants convicted of some types of crimes but not others, violated the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 286, 287). Applying a shorthand analysis of Alaska’s core equal protection test, the superior court rejected his argument. (Id. at 286–87). The man appealed, arguing that the superior court erred by not applying the full three-prong equal protection test. (Id. at 289). The court of appeals held that the superior court had correctly applied the shorthand analysis test because the full analysis may not be necessary when it’s clear that the two groups of people being treated differently are not similarly situated, and are therefore not entitled to equal treatment. (Id. at 288). The court of appeals further held that application of the full equal protection test would lead to the same result – no equal protection violation because defendants convicted of crimes (many of which were violent and dangerous) for which the statute disallowed credit, were not similarly situated to those who had not committed those enumerated crimes. (Id. at 289). Affirming the superior court’s judgment, the court of appeals agreed that AS 12.55.027’s legislative classification of denying electronic monitoring credit to defendants who had committed certain crimes, but granting the credit to defendants who had committed other types of crimes, was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution. (Id. at 290).