Court Opinion

ID: 9546443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:29:26.494381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:26.705246
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I have no difficulty with' this court’s affirmance of the superior court’s denial of appellant’s initial application for post-conviction relief. More specifically, I am in accord with the majority’s conclusions that the superior court’s resolution of the probable cause issue was correct. I also believe that the superior court’s evaluation of the impact of certain inaccuracies which were discovered in the original record on appeal did not affect any substantive aspect *240of our decision in Merrill v. State, 423 P.2d 686 (Alaska 1967).
The focus of my disagreement concerns the court’s disposition of appellant’s amended application for post-conviction relief. The majority has characterized this application “as a [second] successive application for post-conviction relief pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(b).”1 In this pleading, appellant sought relief from his conviction on the ground of “systematic, unlawful exclusion of certain classes of persons from the jury at appellant’s trial.” This precise ground had not been previously advanced by appellant either at trial or in any post-conviction proceeding held pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(b). The superior court disposed of the amended application without an evidentiary hearing.2 The lower court’s order of July 29, 1968, rejecting the amended application is somewhat enigmatic, but contains a hint that the court might have believed that it had no jurisdiction to entertain this second successive application for post-conviction relief.3
The prime motivation for dissenting from the decision of my colleagues is the belief that it is basically unfair to review the merits of appellant’s amended, or successive application for post-conviction relief, under criteria which did not become effective until some two months after the superior court had denied appellant’s amended application for post-conviction relief. For Criminal Rule 35 (i), which provides the matrix for the majority’s decision, did not become effective until September 16, 1968.4
Antecedent to this court’s promulgation of a new rule for post-conviction procedures, our Criminal Rule 35(b), in its essential provisions, was identical to the provisions of 28 U.S.C., section 2255. This statute established certain procedures and standards for the obtention of post-conviction relief in the trial courts of the federal judicial system. Both Alaska’s former Criminal Rule 35(b), and its federal prototype, provided that the “sentencing court * * * shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” In 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its seminal decision in Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 12-15, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, 159-161 (1963), held that the doctrine of res judicata was not applicable to motions for post-conviction relief under section 2255. There the court construed the phraseology “similar relief” as meaning relief sought on a similar ground as distinguished from reseeking post-conviction relief in general. More to the point, the Supreme Court in Sanders formulated three conditions which must be satisfied before the sentencing court could properly accord controlling weight to a denial of a prior application for relief under section *2412255. These criteria are contained in the following passage from Sanders'.
Controlling weight may be given to denial of a prior application for federal habeas corpus or § 2255 relief only if (1) the same ground presented in the subsequent application was determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application, (2) the prior determination was on the merits, and (3) the ends of justice would not be served by reaching the merits of the subsequent application.5
Concerning the problem of successive applications which are claimed to be an abuse of discretion, in Sanders the Court said:
No matter how many prior applications for federal collateral relief a prisoner has made, the principle elaborated in Subpart A, supra, cannot apply if a different ground is presented by the new application. So too, it cannot apply if the same ground was earlier presented but not adjudicated on the merits. In either case, full consideration of the merits of the new application can be avoided only if there has been an abuse of the writ or motion remedy; and this the Government has the burden of pleading.6
In Sanders, the Court remarked that abuse of remedy is shown if it is established that the movant had deliberately withheld a possible ground for collateral relief in the hope of being granted two hearings rather than one, or if the movant deliberately abandoned one of his grounds at the first hearing. Also of significance is the fact that Sanders made applicable criteria developed in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), and Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), for the determination of abuse of remedy concerning section 2255 motions.7
When measured against what I consider the controlling standards in force at the time appellant’s amended application for relief was filed, and at the time it was denied by the sentencing court, I cannot conclude that the sentencing court’s denial of the amended application for post-conviction relief warrants affirmance. In short, under Sanders controlling weight could not be accorded to the fact that this was a successive application for post-conviction relief. None of the three criteria of Sanders were met here, nor was any abuse of remedy shown. The amended application raised a new ground. In my view it could not be determined conclusively from an examination of the files and records that appellant was entitled to no relief. See Knaub v. State, 443 P.2d 44, 50 (Alaska 1968). I am therefore of the view that this facet of the appeal should be remanded for further proceedings.
Nothing in this court’s own prior decisions under former Criminal Rule 35 (b) would have alerted either appellant, or his counsel, that judicial interpretations of section 2255 would not be given controlling weight in the resolution of issues under our then parallel provisions of Criminal Rule 35(b). In our recent opinion in Pore v. State,8 we cited Sanders in support of the following, statement: “Our holding today does not preclude appellant from making a second application for post conviction relief.” Even more recently in Widermyre v. State 9 we reversed the sentencing court’s rejection of a second successive application for post-conviction re*242lief. Adherence to Sanders’ holdings concerning res judicata and the weight to be accorded the fact that appellant had made a prior application for post-conviction relief were implicit in these decisions.
Disregarding the foregoing, the majority now holds both appellant and his counsel to a standard which required that all grounds for relief be raised in appellant’s original application unless sufficient reason be shown for not asserting the ground in the original proceeding. I reiterate not only was this rule not in effect when appellant and his counsel filed the amended application, it still had yet to be promulgated at the time the sentencing court denied the amended application. This situation is further compounded by virtue of the majority’s affirmance of the sentencing court’s denial of any relief under the amended application without affording appellant the opportunity of establishing, either at the appellate level or upon remand, “sufficient reason” for not asserting the composition-of-the-jury-panel ground in his original application.
Concerning the provisions of our present Criminal Rule 35(i), I would have preferred that the court deferred placing any judicial gloss upon its text until the matter had been presented in an 'adversary setting. I do wish to voice my approval though of the apparent liberal interpretation of Criminal Rule 35 (i) which will be employed in situations where the applicant was not represented by counsel at the time of making his initial application or at the time the issue “could have been raised.” For I think it would be an unfortunate retreat if we were to require technical proficiency from lay pleaders attempting to obtain post-conviction relief. Many problems ranging in scope from administrative to those of constitutional dimensions concerning the meaning of the language employed in Criminal Rule 35 (i) must await judicial decision. Assuming the applicability of our present Criminal Rule 35 (i) as the governing standard for review of the trial court’s ruling on appellant’s amended application, I consider it sufficient at this time to adhere to the presumption of sufficient reason which the majority has today approved for applicants for post-conviction relief who do not have the benefit of assistance of counsel.

. At the time appellant filed this amended application in superior court, Criminal Rule 35(b) read in part:
The sentencing court, or its successor, shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.

. Crim.R. 35(b) at that time provided in part as follows:
Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon the State District Attorney, grant a prompt hearing thereon, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.

. This misapprehension possibly resulted because of the language we employed in originally remanding the case. In this court’s order of July 10, 1967, the case was remanded to the superior court pursuant to Crim.R. 35(b) and “the requirements laid down by this Court in Thompson v. State, 412 P.2d 628, 636-637 (Alaska 1966).” In Thompson, we specifically retained jurisdiction of the case.

. See Supreme Ct. Order 98 pursuant to which the present Crim.R. 35 governing post-conviction procedures was promulgated. As previously indicated, appellant’s amended application was denied by the superior court on July 29, 1968.

.Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 15, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 1077, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, 161 (1963) (footnote omitted). In its opinion, the Supreme Court also indicated that even if these three are not met, a successive motion could be denied without a hearing if the application, files and records of the case show conclusively that it is without merit.

. Id. 83 S.Ct. at 1078, 10 L.Ed.2d 162.

. In Fay, the Supreme Court employed the “deliberate by-passing” criterion for determining abuse of post-conviction remedies, as well as the “inexcusable neglect” or “inexcusable default” criterion.

. 452 P.2d 433 (Alaska 1969).

. 452 P.2d 885 (Alaska 1969).