Court Opinion

ID: 9547578
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:49:11.320699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:52.127197
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Chief Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I strongly disapprove of that part of the presiding judge’s standing order permitting appointed counsel to “provide legal representation or to arrange for another attorney to provide said representation.” (Emphasis added.) Such language suggests that counsel can fulfill his professional obligation by simply hiring a replacement.
The responsibility for selecting and appointing counsel in cases such as this belongs exclusively to the court. The court should exercise its appointment power with due regard for the complexity of the case, the experience and circumstances of counsel, and other relevant factors. The court should not, however, delegate any part of its responsibility to counsel. Thus, the court should either enforce its order, or relieve counsel of his obligation and make a new appointment. Insofar as our opinion today approves of any other practice, I dissent.
I dissent also on the issue of Wood’s right to a jury trial. I would take this opportunity to overrule our decision in State v. Browder, 486 P.2d 925 (Alaska 1971), to the extent that it provides that right in the instant case. The rule that I *1234would adopt is the one advocated by the late Chief Justice Boney, in his concurring opinion in Browder.
Otherwise, I concur in the opinion of the court.