CRIMINAL LAW
Court of Appeals of Alaska (2022)
Sarah Brooks
In Foy v. State, 515 P.3d 659 (Alaska Ct. App. 2022), the court of appeals held that a defendant cannot raise a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness after entering a guilty plea, unless the vindictiveness of the prosecution was apparent on the record at the time the defendant entered his plea. (Id. at 663). Foy was charged with assaulting two women and pled guilty to lesser charges. (Id. at 659). After Foy was sentenced on his guilty plea, he raised a post-conviction claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, alleging that the prosecuting attorney brought the assault charges against him because Foy had filed a complaint against the prosecutor in another case. (Id.). The state argued that Foy’s prosecutorial vindictiveness claim was invalid because he did not raise the claim prior to pleading guilty. (Id. at 660). Foy argued that prosecutorial vindictiveness is a jurisdictional claim, and therefore any requirement to bring the claim before pleading guilty did not apply. (Id. at 661). The appeals court held that the post-conviction claim was invalid because the prosecutorial vindictiveness alleged in this case was not apparent on the record at the time the plea was raised. (Id. at 662–63). Affirming the lower court, the court of appeals held that a defendant cannot raise a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness after entering a guilty plea, unless the vindictiveness of the prosecution was apparent on the record at the time the defendant entered his plea. (Id. at 663).
