Court Opinion

ID: 9546648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:33:22.597769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:42.939606
License: Public Domain

RABINOWITZ, Justice,
with whom, ERWIN, Justice, joins, concurring.
I concur in the court’s holding that Thompson should be granted credit for the period he was incarcerated prior to being sentenced. On the other hand, I find I am unable to join the majority in its reliance upon Merrill v. State, 457 P.2d 231 (Alaska 1969), and Criminal Rule 35 (i) as the basis for failing to reach the merits of Thompson’s application for post-conviction relief. I entertain doubts as to the constitutionality, under either the federal or Alaska Constitutions, of the requirement of Criminal Rule 35(i) that any ground for relief not raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application for post-conviction relief will not be considered in a subsequent application unless the court finds sufficient reason for the failure to make the assertion in the first application.
Since I am of the further view that the sentence imposed was not tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment, I concur in the overall result reached by the court in this case.