Treptow v. State
408 P.3d 1220
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Matthew Treptow was convicted of felony DUI under AS 28.35.030(n) because he had two prior DUI convictions within ten years: one from Alaska and one from Arizona.
- Treptow argued the Arizona DUI should not count because Arizona required government consent and court approval for any jury-waiver, whereas he claimed Alaska law allowed misdemeanor defendants an absolute right to waive a jury without consent/approval.
- Alaska Criminal Rule 23(a) (as amended in 2013) states felony waivers must be written with court approval and state consent; misdemeanor waivers "may be in writing or made on the record in open court." Treptow read this to eliminate consent/approval for misdemeanors.
- The court examined the pre-statehood federal Rule 23(a), Alaska’s 1959 rules, the District Court Criminal Rules (which permitted oral waivers but otherwise incorporated Rule 23’s consent/approval requirements), and the 2013 rule-change legislative history.
- The administrative drafters and rule committee intended the 2013 wording to incorporate the district-court rule allowing oral (nonwritten) waivers in misdemeanors, not to eliminate the consent/approval requirements; the committee left the language ambiguous but did not intend a substantive change.
- The Court of Appeals held that Criminal Rule 23(a) requires government consent and court approval for jury-waivers in both felonies and misdemeanors; thus Arizona law does not differ on that point, and Treptow’s Arizona DUI counts as a prior conviction. The superior court judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona DUI conviction qualifies as a prior conviction for Alaska felony-DUI enhancement | Treptow: Arizona conviction invalid for enhancement because Arizona (like Alaska, for felonies) conditions jury-waiver on government consent & court approval, while Alaska allows misdemeanor defendants an absolute right to bench trial without consent/approval — so Arizona law differs from Alaska and its conviction should not count | State: No material difference between Alaska and Arizona on the jury-waiver issue; Alaska Rule 23(a) requires consent and court approval for waivers in all cases, so Arizona prior counts | Held: Rule 23(a) requires government consent and court approval for jury-waivers in both felony and misdemeanor cases; Arizona DUI counts as a prior conviction and felony conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (Sup. Ct.) (defendant may waive jury trial, but waiver requires defendant's intelligent consent plus government consent and court sanction)
- Hatchett v. Government of Guam, 212 F.2d 767 (9th Cir.) (discussion of historical wording of Federal Criminal Rule 23(a))
- Low v. United States, 169 F. 86 (6th Cir. 1909) (common-law authorities holding jury trial could not be waived)
- Dickinson v. United States, 159 F. 801 (1st Cir. 1908) (common-law authority on nonwaivability of jury trial)