Rofkar v. State, 273 P.3d 1140

Rofkar grew a substantial quantity of marijuana in a rented house.
State Troopers searched the house and charged him with four felonies under AS 11.71.040 (misconduct involving a controlled substance in the fourth degree).
Charges: manufacture one ounce+ (a)(2); possess one pound+ (a)(3)(F); possess 25+ cannabis plants (a)(3)(G); maintain a dwelling for keeping drugs (a)(5).
Jury convicted on all four charges; superior court merged the two possession counts into manufacturing but did not merge the maintaining count.
Court of Appeals declined to consider the issue; Alaska Supreme Court vacated and remanded to consider whether multiple convictions violate double jeopardy under the Whitton framework and whether Davis v. State aligns with that framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the double jeopardy claim was properly raised and preserved	Rofkar adequately raised the issue; not waived.	State argued the issue was not properly raised or preserved.	Yes, raised and not waived; merits must be addressed on remand.
Whether Davis v. State aligns with the Whitton test for multiplicity	Davis may not apply under Whitton; needs reconsideration or overruling.	Davis controls as precedent.	Unclear alignment; remand to apply Whitton-based, case-specific analysis.

Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302 (Alaska 1970) ( establishes the Whitton test for multiplicity and social-interest comparison)
Davis v. State, 766 P.2d 41 (Alaska App. 1988) (categorical approach to drug possession vs maintaining a dwelling; may not track Whitton framework)
Dunlop v. State, 508 P.2d 1192 (Alaska 1973) (separate question of multiple deaths; informs Whitton boundaries)
Thessen v. State, 508 P.2d 1192 (Alaska 1973) ((note: actual citation Thessen v. State); referenced in Whitton framework)
Maness v. State, 49 P.3d 1128 (Alaska App. 2002) (cited in discussing potential application of Whitton in certain cases)