Charles v. State, 326 P.3d 978

Charles, convicted of a sex offense in the 1980s, faced ASORA registration after enactment in 1994; ASORA expressly retroactive.
In 2006, Charles was charged with misdemeanor failure to register as a sex offender.
2007 Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
2008 Doe I held ASORA unconstitutional ex post facto as applied to pre-enactment offenses.
Charles filed a petition for hearing; the Alaska Supreme Court remanded for consideration of direct-review retroactivity and waiver questions.
The Alaska Supreme Court ultimately adopts Griffith direct-review retroactivity and vacates Charles’s conviction, reversing the prior appellate decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doe I retroactively applies on direct review	Charles	State	Yes; Griffith standard adopted for direct review retroactivity.
Whether Charles waived ex post facto challenge	Charles did not knowingly waive	State	Not waived; retroactive application allowed.
Whether to reverse Charles’s conviction	Charles seeks relief under Doe I	State opposes reversal	Conviction reversed and relief granted.
Whether to adopt Griffith as the direct-review retroactivity standard	Charles/State favor Griffith	State favored delay	Adopt Griffith; overrule Judd for direct review retroactivity.
Scope of retroactivity to direct-review cases	Doe I should apply on direct review	Limitations under prior standards	Griffith applies to Charles and similar direct-review cases.

Doe v. State (Doe I), 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008) (ASORA ex post facto as applied to pre-enactment offenses unconstitutional)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules apply to cases not yet final on direct review)
Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273 (Alaska 1971) (Linkletter-based retroactivity; later overruled for direct review)
State v. Smart, 202 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2009) (discusses retroactivity standards in Alaska)
Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646 (1971) (illustrates direct-review retroactivity history)