241 P.3d 504
Alaska Ct. App.2010Background
- Cleveland was convicted of second-degree assault and second-degree sexual assault; direct appeal affirmed.
- Alaska Supreme Court denied petition for hearing on the direct appeal on August 26, 2004.
- Before the Supreme Court resolved the petition, Blakely v. Washington issued (August 2004).
- Cleveland filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Criminal Rule 35(a) on August 19, 2004; denied January 27, 2005; decision affirmed on appeal in 2006.
- Cleveland then filed pro se post-conviction relief on April 10, 2007; an amended PCM sought additional claims of ineffective assistance.
- State moved to dismiss PCM as untimely under AS 12.72.020(a)(3)(A); superior court dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule tolling applies to the PCM deadline. | Cleveland argued motion to correct illegal sentence tolled the clock. | State contends no tolling under AS 12.72.020(a)(3)(A) for Rule 35(a) motions filed late. | Motion to correct illegal sentence does not toll PCM deadline. |
| Whether finality of the appellate decision governs PCM deadline. | Cleveland contends finality includes post-Rule 35(a) proceedings; timing differs. | State and majority interpret finality as appellate-final, not trial-judgment final. | Appellate decision finality controls PCM deadline; petition untimely. |
| Whether equitable tolling/plain error supports PCM. | Cleveland asserts equitable tolling due to extraordinary circumstances and access-to-courts concerns. | No extraordinary circumstances shown; tolling not plain error. | No plain error; equitable tolling not warranted. |
| Whether due process rights to access to courts were violated by the PCM deadline. | Cleveland implies barrier to access due to timing. | No insurmountable barrier; claims could have been raised earlier. | No due process violation; petitioner barred by statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. State, 91 P.3d 965 (Alaska App. 2004) (appellate affirmance of conviction and sentence)
- Cleveland v. State, 143 P.3d 977 (Alaska App. 2006) (affirmation of sentencing-correcting ruling)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (precludes practical use in sentence enhancement without jury findings)
- Wellmix, Inc. v. Anchorage, 471 P.2d 408 (Alaska 1970) (Rule 60(b) tolling not resetting appeal deadline)
- Alaska Placer Co. v. Lee, 502 P.2d 128 (Alaska 1972) (Rule 60(b) tolling; finality considerations)
- McCracken v. Davis, 560 P.2d 771 (Alaska 1977) (appeal from Rule 60(b) denial not review of underlying judgment)
- Kaiser v. Umialik Ins., 108 P.3d 876 (Alaska 2005) (equitable tolling proof requirements in Alaska)
- Sands ex rel. Sands v. Green, 156 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2007) (due process in access-to-courts context)