Wyatt v. State
2017 Alas. App. LEXIS 26
| Alaska Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 1994 Ronald F. Wyatt was convicted of first-degree murder and evidence tampering; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- At trial Wyatt’s counsel rested without calling Wyatt; the judge gave the LaVigne advisement (advising Wyatt of his right to testify) but did not obtain an express waiver and did not press Wyatt to state whether he chose to testify.
- Wyatt initially filed a pro se post-conviction relief (PCR) application alleging his trial attorney actively prevented him from testifying; counsel appointed for the PCR abandoned that claim and instead argued the judge failed to obtain an express waiver of the right to testify.
- The superior court dismissed the first PCR application for failure to state a prima facie case; this Court affirmed. Wyatt then filed a second PCR alleging his first PCR attorney was incompetent for abandoning the active-obstruction claim.
- Wyatt’s second PCR included affidavits (Wyatt and his son) asserting the trial counsel told Wyatt he would not be permitted to testify and thus obstructed Wyatt’s right to testify.
- The superior court dismissed the second PCR on the pleadings; the Court of Appeals reverses as to the ineffective-assistance claim against the first PCR attorney and remands for discovery/ further proceedings, while affirming dismissal of other trial-based claims as barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wyatt pleaded a prima facie claim that his first PCR attorney was incompetent in selecting issues | Wyatt: counsel abandoned a litigable “active obstruction” claim and pursued a clearly meritless “lack of express waiver” claim | State: counsel may have had tactical reasons; dismissal proper because the record allowed that inference | Held: Wyatt pleaded a prima facie claim of incompetence; dismissal was error and remand for further proceedings is required |
| Whether the “active obstruction” claim (trial counsel prevented Wyatt from testifying) was litigable | Wyatt: affidavits state counsel told him he could not testify and failed to prepare him; son corroborates | State: record (LaVigne advisement) suggests no obstruction; issue not entitled to relief on pleadings | Held: the active-obstruction claim was sufficiently plausible to be litigated; it was not properly abandoned as a matter of strategy without justification |
| Whether pursuing a “lack of express waiver” claim was reasonable/tactically sound | Wyatt: that claim was meritless under existing case law and required Wyatt to testify at a hearing, so abandoning the active-obstruction claim was incompetent | State: the prior PCR attorney might have chosen a cleaner claim that avoided evidentiary hearing | Held: the lack-of-express-waiver claim was clearly meritless under then-existing law; any asserted tactical justification offered by court did not excuse dismissal at pleading stage |
| Whether other trial-based claims (jury instructions, suppression, prosecutorial misconduct) can be litigated in second PCR | Wyatt: raised additional trial errors in his brief | State: those claims were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred in PCR | Held: those claims are barred and dismissal of them is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- LaVigne v. State, 812 P.2d 217 (Alaska 1991) (sets out trial judge’s duty to advise defendant of right to testify)
- Coffman v. State, 172 P.3d 804 (Alaska App. 2007) (standard for challenging counsel’s selection of issues on appeal/PCR)
- Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska App. 2000) (permitting a second PCR when prior PCR counsel was incompetent)
- Weist v. Anchorage, 929 P.2d 668 (Alaska App. 1996) (LaVigne errors require a showing of prejudice; no automatic reversal)
- Pitka v. State, 995 P.2d 677 (Alaska App. 2000) (same: defendant must show they would have testified and had relevant testimony)
- Knix v. State, 922 P.2d 913 (Alaska App. 1996) (addresses limits of LaVigne-related waiver requirements)