Starkey v. State
2016 Alas. App. LEXIS 189
Alaska Ct. App.2016Background
- Dale Starkey was convicted after a bench trial and given a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) with two years supervised probation.
- An automatic stay of probation applied during Starkey’s appeal under Alaska App. R. 206(a)(3); probation therefore did not lawfully run while the appeal was pending.
- Due to court staff error, the superior court issued a notice and then an order (distributed Aug. 7, 2012) erroneously declaring Starkey’s probation expired and setting aside his conviction.
- The State did not timely object; Starkey was later arrested on an unrelated misdemeanor and the State filed a petition to revoke probation, arguing the discharge/set-aside was void.
- The superior court vacated its earlier discharge/set-aside as void ab initio, reinstated the SIS, and set a revocation hearing; Starkey sought interlocutory review arguing double jeopardy and due process bars to rescission.
Issues
| Issue | Starkey’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy attached to the court’s discharge and set-aside order | The order is final and bars reinstatement (equivalent to acquittal) | The order was plainly erroneous and void, so jeopardy did not attach | Jeopardy did not attach; court could rescind the plainly erroneous order |
| Whether the superior court had authority to vacate its own set-aside/discharge order | Rescission violates due process and finality because State failed to timely object | Court retained authority to correct a plainly erroneous, unauthorized order | Court may rescind a facially erroneous order; no due process violation on these facts |
| Whether Starkey’s post-order conduct can support revocation | Conduct occurred when probation was stayed/appeared terminated; revocation would be unfair | Some alleged violations occurred after the erroneous order and can be litigated if lawful notice/due process met | Due process concerns exist (notice, reliance); factual issues reserved to trial court |
| Whether equitable principles or waiver bar correction of the error | State’s delay/inaction waived its right to challenge the order | Short delay and lack of detrimental reliance do not preclude correction | Equity did not bar rescission here; no showing of reasonable detrimental reliance by Starkey |
Key Cases Cited
- Champion v. State, 908 P.2d 454 (Alaska App. 1995) (an unauthorized set-aside is void ab initio)
- Richey v. State, 717 P.2d 407 (Alaska App. 1986) (unauthorized conviction-set aside may be void)
- Wickham v. State, 770 P.2d 757 (Alaska App. 1989) (discussing automatic stay of probation on appeal)
- Lindsay v. United States, 520 A.2d 1059 (D.C. 1987) (trial court may vacate a patently erroneous probation discharge/set-aside without violating double jeopardy)
- Evans v. Michigan, 133 S. Ct. 1069 (U.S. 2013) (court-ordered post-verdict acquittals that are unauthorized do not always trigger double jeopardy protections against corrective action)
- Shagloak v. State, 582 P.2d 1034 (Alaska 1978) (jeopardy does not attach to an unauthorized sentence)
- Mekiana v. State, 726 P.2d 189 (Alaska 1986) (procedures for notice before discharge and set-aside)
- Marunich v. State, 151 P.3d 510 (Alaska App. 2006) (probationers’ due process right to reasonable notice of probation conditions)