258 P.3d 874
Alaska Ct. App.2011Background
- In 1985, the superior court waived Fletcher's juvenile jurisdiction; she then pleaded no contest to three murders.
- The waiver hearing relied on testimony, including from Boyd, who later recanted, claiming Fletcher drove the killings.
- Five mental health professionals testified at the waiver hearing about amenability to treatment; most believed poor rehabilitation prospects.
- In 1986 Fletcher was sentenced; Boyd recanted publicly in 1986, and again in 1987 during defense interviews.
- In 2005 Fletcher sought post-conviction relief, asserting new evidence (Boyd recantation and juvenile brain research) could have changed the waiver outcome.
- Superior Court dismissed the petition as untimely/nonqualifying and held Fletcher waived non-jurisdictional defects by pleading no contest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new-evidence post-conviction claims are jurisdictional | Fletcher argues new evidence undermines waiver validity. | State contends such claims are non-jurisdictional and waived by plea. | Non-jurisdictional and waived by plea |
| Whether defects in the waiver proceeding affect subject-matter jurisdiction | Waiver defects are jurisdictional and not waived by plea. | Waiver challenges are non-jurisdictional and waived by no-contest plea. | Waiver defects are non-jurisdictional and waived |
| Effect of a no contest plea on challenging prior proceedings | Plea should not bar challenges to constitutional errors in waiver. | Plea forfeits non-jurisdictional challenges arising before the plea. | Plea forfeits non-jurisdictional challenges |
| Alaska waiver proceedings’ impact on jurisdictional analysis | Alaska cases allow challenges to waiver proceedings as jurisdictional. | Alaska treats waiver challenges as non-jurisdictional and waivable. | Alaska treats challenges as waivable/non-jurisdictional |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Ricketts, 798 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1986) (transfer-related issues not jurisdictional)
- State v. Marks, 186 Ariz. 139, 920 P.2d 19 (Ariz.App. 1996) (personal jurisdiction distinction in transfer cases)
- Commonwealth v. Cotto, 708 A.2d 806 (Pa. Super. 1998) (claims about waiver constitutionality non-jurisdictional)
- State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 978 P.2d 214 (Idaho 1999) (waiver-related defects not jurisdictional)
- State v. Yodprasit, 564 N.W.2d 383 (Iowa 1997) (waiver proceedings and jurisdictional scope)
- Waynewood v. State, 552 N.W.2d 718 (Minn. 1996) (personal vs subject-matter jurisdiction distinctions)
- Petition of Nilles, 412 N.W.2d 116 (S.D. 1987) (waiver/transfer-related issues; jurisdictional treatment)
- State v. Griffin, 914 S.W.2d 564 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (waiver/juvenile proceedings and jurisdictional impact)
- State v. Kraemer, 457 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. App. 1990) (juvenile waiver-related jurisdictional analysis)