Opinion ID: 2570325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Superior Court Should Try To Recreate Carlson's Administrative Record on Remand.

Text: After the superior court compelled the state to release Carlson's classification hearing tape, the state notified Carlson that the tape was no longer available. Carlson asserts that the state's inability to produce the tape violated Alaska Civil Rule 26(a)(5), [13] Civil Rule 26(b)(1), [14] and 22 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 05.216(b)(4). [15] Carlson claims that the state's violation of these provisions interfered with his right to due process. The loss of an administrative record is in itself not a violation of due process. [16] On remand, the superior court should attempt to recreate the administrative record of Carlson's classification hearing. Alaska Appellate Rule 210(b)(8) states that when no electronic recording of the proceeding is available, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence of proceedings from the best available means, including the appellant's recollection. Appellant's statement should be served on the appellees, who can then object or submit proposed amendments. [17] Alaska Appellate Rule 210(i) grants the superior court the discretion to settle any disagreement concerning the content and form of the record. Per that rule, if the superior court cannot faithfully recreate the administrative record, it should remand to DOC for recreation of the record. [18]