State v. Carlin
249 P.3d 752
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Consolidated Alaska Supreme Court cases address effect of a criminal defendant's death while appeal pending (Carlin) and while discretionary review is sought (Dale).
- Hartwell v. State established abatement ab initio—conviction and all proceedings abate upon a defendant's death during appeal.
- Hartwell treated as controlling because appeal was a right at the time; post-1980 structure gives discretionary review differently.
- Court recognizes victims’ rights and evolving appellate practices as changed conditions since Hartwell.
- Court abandons Hartwell and adopts substitution in lieu of abatement, allowing appeal to continue with substitution by estate if pursued.
- Court directs substituted representation by the public defender or estate’s chosen substitute and retains conviction if substitution not pursued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hartwell should be overruled. | State: changed conditions warrant overruling Hartwell. | Carlin/Dale: Hartwell remains valid unless overruled. | Hartwell overruled; substitution adopted. |
| What replaces abatement ab initio as the rule for death during appeal. | State/amicus favor continuing prosecution with abatement option. | Defendant's estate should govern continuation via substitution. | Substitution replaces abatement ab initio; appeal may continue with substitution. |
| Is the appeal still viable when a defendant dies during discretionary review? | State argues Hartwell not controlling for discretionary review. | Estate may continue appeal; death should not automatically nullify proceedings. | Discretionary review cases may continue via substitution; not moot or jurisdictionally barred. |
| Who may substitute to continue the appeal after death? | State favors dismissal or abatement. | Estate or other substituted party may continue; public defender may represent indigents. | Defendant's personal representative may substitute; Public Defender can continue representation. |
| What happens if no substitution is timely made? | State: conviction may remain with abandoned appeal. | Estate may proceed; otherwise conviction stands. | If no substitution, court leaves conviction intact and dismisses appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartwell v. State, 423 P.2d 282 (Alaska 1967) (abates proceedings ab initio upon defendant's death during appeal)
- People v. Mazzone, 74 Ill. 2d 44, 23 Ill. Dec. 76, 383 N.E.2d 947 (Ill. 1978) (grants discretionary review but death occurs; abatement ab initio applied)
- Surland v. State, 392 Md. 17, 895 A.2d 1034 (Md. 2006) (allows substitution to continue appeal; avoids automatic abatement)
- Korsen v. State, 141 Idaho 445, 111 P.3d 130 (Idaho 2005) (recognizes substitution mechanism for continuing appeal)