Wilson v. State
2010 Alas. App. LEXIS 140
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Wilson was indicted for assaulting MacDonald on April 2, 2001.
- Wilson pled no contest to second-degree assault on November 5, 2001, based on his attorney's advice that the plea could not be used in a later civil case; he believed he was not guilty and would not have entered the plea if aware of civil consequences.
- MacDonald sued Wilson in 2003 for damages; a summary judgment awarded damages in the civil case and collateral estoppel against Wilson on elements of the assault.
- Supreme Court upheld the summary judgment against Wilson in Wilson v. MacDonald, and held that the plea validity issue should be raised via post-conviction relief or criminal appeal.
- Wilson then sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and withdrawal of his plea; Judge Thompson dismissed the application; on appeal, the Alaska Court of Appeals held the application could establish a prima facie case and reversed.
- The court emphasized evolving law on direct vs collateral consequences, and considered expert Billingslea’s opinion supporting deficient advice; case remanded for further post-conviction relief proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson established a prima facie case for withdrawal | Wilson; misadvised by counsel about civil impact | State; collateral nature of consequences and proper timing | Yes; prima facie showing established |
| Whether counsel's misadvice about no-contest effects constitutes ineffective assistance | Attorney misled about civil impact | Advice was not ineffective; strategic decision | Yes; potential ineffective assistance if proven at later stages |
| Whether the case can rely on post-conviction relief given evolving law on collateral consequences | Law was unclear at the time of plea; relief warranted | Past law governs; no relief under current standard | Yes; remanded for further proceedings on post-conviction relief |
| Whether other claims (grand jury handling, prosecutorial misconduct) survive prima facie review | Claims fail to rebut presumption of competent strategy | Similarly fail; no prima facie case | These claims were properly dismissed on prima facie grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Tafoya v. State, 500 P.2d 247 (Alaska 1972) (collateral vs direct consequences distinction applied to deportation)
- Burcina v. Ketchikan, 902 P.2d 817 (Alaska 1995) (collateral estoppel implications for civil plaintiff re no-contest)
- Lamb v. Anderson, 147 P.3d 736 (Alaska 2006) (extends collateral estoppel rule to post-2001 context)
- Kwan, United States v., 407 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005) (misleading advice on immigration consequences may be ineffective assistance)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (counsel must inform about deportation; standard of care breached)
- Turnbull v. LaRose, 702 P.2d 1331 (Alaska 1985) (guidance on post-conviction relief considerations)
- Jones v. State, 759 P.2d 558 (Alaska App. 1988) (strong presumption of competent counsel; tactical decisions)