Charles v. State
2012 Alas. App. LEXIS 158
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Charles challenged his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender under AS 12.68, arising from an offense in the 1980s before the act's 1994 enactment.
- Alaska Supreme Court later decided in Doe v. State that sex offender registration constitutes punishment for ex post facto purposes.
- Charles sought retroactive application of Doe to his pre-enactment conviction via a pending petition for hearing.
- The Court directed this court to address (1) waiver/forfeiture of ex post facto challenges, (2) adopting Griffith retroactivity or continuing Judd rules, and (3) whether Doe should be applied retroactively under Griffith.
- The court treated its task as advisory, providing analysis on retroactivity and plain-error standards, given the pending status of Charles’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver/forfeiture of ex post facto claims | Charles may preserve via plain error relief | State argues waiver/forfeiture may apply | Doe retroactive regardless of waiver theory under plain error analysis |
| Adopting Griffith retroactivity vs. Judd | Griffith should apply to retroactively benefit Charles | Judd offers flexible case-by-case retroactivity guidance | No need to resolve Griffith vs. Judd; Doe retroactive under either rule for Charles |
| Plain-error standard for ex post facto relief | Ex post facto violation was plain error prejudicial to fairness | No preserved error, no relief absent plain error | Charles entitled to relief if Doe retroactivity applies and plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008) (sex offender registration deemed punishment for ex post facto purposes)
- Judd v. State, 482 P.2d 273 (Alaska 1971) (retroactivity standard in Alaska (Judd rule))
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (new constitutional rules retroactive under Griffith)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) ( Teague retroactivity framework for final judgments)
- Smart v. State (Smart II), 202 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2009) (Alaska applies Judd rule to retroactivity; Teague comparison noted)
- Smart v. State (Smart I), 146 P.3d 15 (Alaska App. 2006) (early Alaska retroactivity discussion under Blakely framework)