Alexie v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 122
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Arthur A. Alexie Sr. pleaded guilty on December 7, 2011 to one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor (class C felony) pursuant to a plea agreement; he was sentenced the same day to 5 years, no suspension.
- Alexie originally faced more serious charges (second-degree and attempted second-degree) involving two child victims; he conceded an aggravating factor (offense was the most serious).
- Four months after sentencing, Alexie filed a post-conviction application under Alaska Criminal Rule 11(h) seeking to withdraw his plea, alleging his counsel misinformed and coerced him.
- In his affidavit Alexie claimed he was told he would serve only 22 months and that the charge was an attempted offense, and that counsel coerced him to say “guilty.”
- Defense counsel filed a contradictory affidavit asserting she properly informed Alexie and did not coerce him. The State asked the superior court to summarily dismiss the petition as contradicted by the plea colloquy.
- The superior court dismissed the application; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that factual conflicts over plea understanding/credibility required an evidentiary hearing rather than summary dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alexie) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should survive summary dismissal when applicant claims he did not understand plea terms or was coerced | Alexie: counsel misinformed him about sentence/charge and coerced plea; his affidavit supports plea withdrawal | State: Alexie’s on-the-record responses at the change-of-plea hearing flatly contradict his affidavit; summary dismissal appropriate | Court: Remand — factual conflict over credibility cannot be resolved on papers; hearing required |
| Whether Alexie’s failure to expressly allege prejudice (that he would not have pleaded guilty) justified dismissal | Alexie: seeks withdrawal as involuntary/unknowing; affidavit implies prejudice | State: technical pleading deficiency and plea colloquy negate claim | Court: Court did not dismiss based on technical omission; substance of claim (unknowing/involuntary plea) suffices to require further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- LaBrake v. State, 152 P.3d 474 (Alaska App. 2007) (court need not accept patently false factual assertions when deciding summary dismissal)
- Steffensen v. State, 837 P.2d 1123 (Alaska App. 1992) (trial court must accept as true well-pleaded facts when considering summary dismissal in post-conviction context)
- Vizcarra-Medina v. State, 195 P.3d 1095 (Alaska App. 2008) (summary judgment appropriate only when law requires decision for moving party even if non-moving party’s facts true)
- Wilson v. State, 244 P.3d 535 (Alaska App. 2010) (to withdraw plea based on counsel’s incorrect advice, applicant must show he would not have pleaded guilty but for the advice)