Court Opinion

ID: 9577672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:36:58.591037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:01.533668
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the disposition of the case and in Justice Dimond’s conclusion that an indigent movant under Criminal Rule 35 (b) is entitled to court appointed counsel once the sentencing court has determined that a hearing is required. I reach these conclusions on other than equal protection grounds.
In the lower court appellant sought to set aside his guilty plea and the judgment and commitment which was thereafter entered on the basis that his plea had been coerced. Pursuant to Criminal Rule 35(b), the superior court granted a hearing to determine *256the factual issues which were raised by appellant’s motion.
I am of the opinion that once the sentencing court has concluded that a Criminal Rule 35 (b) motion is of sufficient substance to require a hearing to resolve factual issues, then the contemplated hearing is adversary in character. At such a hearing I believe it is essential that the indigent mov-ant have the assistance of counsel. Failure to appoint counsel in such circumstances results in fundamental unfairness to an indigent movant.
In Powell v. State of Alabama,* Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote:
What, then, does a hearing include? Historically and in practice, in our own country at least, it has always included the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right. The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law.
The rationale of Powell is applicable to the type of hearing involved in this appeal. As Justice Dimond has demonstrated, since Powell was rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States the right to counsel for indigents in state cases has been expanded both as to the type of proceedings to which the right appertains and to the timing of effective assistance of counsel.**
Under this court’s supervisory powers over the administration of criminal justice in the State of Alaska, I would require counsel to be appointed for all indigents who have been accorded a factual hearing under Criminal Rule 35(b). In so doing we would give recognition to the paramount importance of insuring the integrity and accuracy of our fact-finding processes.
Alternatively, I am of the belief that denial of assistance of counsel to an indi-, gent in regard to a Criminal Rule 35(b) hearing is fundamentally unfair and viola-tive of the due process clause of article 1, section 7 of the Alaska constitution.

 287 U.S. 45, 68-69, 53 S.Ct. 55, 64, 77 L.Ed. 158, 170 (1932).

 As noted by Justice Dimond, the Supreme Court has used both due process (incorporating the sixth amendment’s right to the assistance of counsel) and the equal protection clauses in deciding these cases.