NOTICE
 

The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the 

Pacific Reporter. Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal 

errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts: 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
 

Fax: (907) 264-0878
 

E-mail: corrections @ akcourts.us
 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

JIMMY A. LAMPLEY, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF ALASKA, 

Appellee. 

Court of Appeals No. A-11422 

Trial Court No. 3PA-06-1078 CI 

O P I N I O N

 No. 2459 — June 26, 2015 

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, 

Palmer, Eric Smith, Judge. 

Appearances: Renee McFarland, Assistant Public Defender, 

and Quinlan Steiner, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the 

Appellant. Timothy W. Terrell, Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Craig W. 

Richards, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee. 

Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Hanley, District 

Court Judge. * [Allard, Judge, not participating.] 

Judge MANNHEIMER. 

* Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska 

Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Jimmy A. Lampley appeals the superior court’s dismissal of his petition for 

post-conviction relief. 

The superior court dismissed Lampley’s petition after his court-appointed 

attorney filed a certificate of “no arguable merit” under Alaska Criminal Rule 

35.1(e)(2)(C). The superior court gave Lampley the opportunity to respond to his 

attorney’s “no arguable merit” certificate. After considering Lampley’s response (and 

the replies filed by the State and Lampley’s attorney), the superior court concluded that 

Lampley’s petition had no arguable merit. The court then issued a written order 

explaining its reasoning and dismissing Lampley’s petition. 

On appeal, the State concedes that the procedure described in the preceding 

paragraph violated Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1(f)(2), the rule that specifies a court’s 

duties in cases where a defendant’s attorney files a certificate of “no arguable merit”. 

Rule 35.1(f)(2) declares that if the court examines the attorney’s certificate 

and concurs in the attorney’s assessment that the petition has no arguable merit, the court 

is then required to “indicate to the parties its intention to ... dismiss the [defendant’s] 

application and its reasons for so doing”. (Emphasis added) After the court does that, 

the defendant and the prosecuting attorney “shall be given an opportunity to reply to the 

proposed ... dismissal.” 

In other words, Rule 35.1(f)(2) contemplates a procedure that is different 

from what happened in Lampley’s case. If (after reviewing the defense attorney’s 

certificate of “no arguable merit”) the court tentatively concludes that there is no 

arguable merit to the defendant’s petition, the court must issue an order explaining its 

own reasons for reaching this conclusion, and then the court must give the defendant 

(and the government) an opportunity to respond to the court’s analysis. 

– 2 – 2459
 
 

 

 

 

 

The reason for requiring this procedure is that the court’s reasons for 

concluding that the petition has no merit may differ from the attorney’s reasons. The 

defendant is entitled to notice of the court’s reasons, and a chance to respond to them. 

Several years ago, we addressed this point of law in an unpublished 

decision: Frank v. State, 2008 WL 3540508 (Alaska App. 2008) at *1 (lead opinion) and 

*3 (concurring opinion of Judge Mannheimer). We now conclude that we should issue 

a published opinion on this point. 

The judgement of the superior court is VACATED. The superior court 

shall treat its already-issued written decision as a tentative decision, and the court shall 

give Lampley and the prosecutor an opportunity to file responses to that tentative 

decision. If either party files a response, the superior court shall re-evaluate its 

conclusion as to whether Lampley’s petition has any arguable merit, and the court shall 

issue an appropriate order. 

We do not retain jurisdiction over this case. 

– 3 – 2459