*1 desired, sepa- it could so legislature If the from the bill authorization the bond
rate funds, avoiding the thus appropriating
bill au- could presented. A bill here
problem incurrence of indebtedness
thorize After ratifi- voter ratification. for occurred, pro- separate could bill
cation meth- This was the appropriation.
vide the after issuing first bonds used
od authorizing At the time of
statehood.3 could, by that
indebtedness, legislature gover-
means, applicability avoid the items to strike or reduce powers
nor’s governor’s bills. Yet
appropriation time of preserved at the would be
powers appropriation enactment of an separate
bill. II, requires generally sec. 13
While art. be con- containing appropriations
that bills I believe that appropriations,
fined to qualifi- include
legislature appropriation restrictions in an
cations the bond authorization Here
bill. not are so entwined that I do appropriation B. J. William Schendel and Paul Canar- II, requiremеnt of art. sec. that the believe Fairbanks, petitioner. sky, is not discussion Extensive 13 is violated.4 Mannheimer, Gen., Atty. David Asst. as it was point, now Fairbanks, Gross, Gen., M. Atty. Avrum opinion. majority reached Juneau, respondents.
OPINION J., BOOCHEVER, and RABI- Before C. BURKE, WITZ, JJ. NO CONNOR Petitioner, REYNOLDS, Alfred T. BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice. of an indi- case involves the This of counsel gent defendant KIMMONS, Respondent.
Debra J.
plaintiff
suit which thе
No. 3305.
hold
state. We
represented
right.
is such a
there
of Alaska.
Supreme Court
Support
Alaska Child
Enforcement
Oct.
represented by
Attorney
Gen-
Agency,
Alaska,
filed suit
eral of
Reynolds. Ms. Debra J.
Alfred T.
Kimmons,
in whose name the suit was
Ray,
(Iowa
Chapters
229 N.W.2d
The 1960
4. See Weldin
169-174 SLA 1960.
Justices,
1975); Opinion
A.2d 720
appropriations
adminis-
make
to cover
did
bills
Bond,
(Mо.
that, also,
(Del.
expenses, although
State v.
495 S.W.2d
could
tration
Governor,
1973); Opinion
separate
239 So.2d
to the
care
bill.
taken
have been
1970).
(Fla.
*2
merits,
in interest.
brought,
party
ternity
was
real
suit
its
on
he had sufficient
alleged
funds,
Mr. Reynolds
them,
that
complaint
or access to
to cover the
Ms.
father of
Kimmons’ minor
to petition
for review.
$200.00
On
8, 1976,
rеquested
February
Judge
and
on June
Blair issued
born
a
petitioner’s
of written order
support payments
denying
to order
motion
court
Reynolds
appointment
for
of
per month.1
wished to
counsel.
$150.00
but,
complaint,
inability
due to
contest the
petition
This
for review of Judge Blair’s
to secure the
of
pay, was unable
services
alleges
writtеn order
process
that
the due
attorney.
applied
Fairbanks
He
private
a
equal protection
and
clauses of the United
Legal
Corporation
to Alaska
Services
for
States and Alaska Constitutions require ap-
counsel,
earnings
but because of his
of
pointment
indigent
of counsel for an
who is
$9,000.00 during
past
twelve mоnths2
defending
prosecuted
a
suit
by
the belief that he had a constitutional
and
Additionally,
the State of Alaska.
it
counsel,
right
agency
to rep-
refused
Reynolds is
contended that
entitled to coun-
Reynolds
him.
was
resent
offered limited
sel because he is a
licensed barber who
if he
a
representation
made
bona fide but
lose
liсense as an
outcome of
suit.
unsuccessful effort
secure services from
We have previously entered an order
more
pri-
two
members of the Fairbanks
granting
petition
for
We
review.
note
Reynolds
vate bar. After
had made addi-
this
the trial court’s order
unsuccessful
attempts
tional
secure coun-
involves
controlling
question of law as to
sel,
Legal
agreed
Alaska
Services
rep-
which
ground
there is substantial
for differ-
Reynolds for the sole purpose
resent
of
ence of opinion, and
immediate review
securing appointed counsel.
materially advance the ultimate termina-
opposed petitioner’s
of Alaska
litigation.3 Postponement
tion
counsel,
appointed
for
it
motion
and
was
review
appeal
until normal
could result in
Judge
by
Judge
denied
Blair.
de-
Hodges
injustice. We also find that
the order
subsequent application
petition
nied a
for
sought to be reviewed is of such importance
Judge
review of
Blair’s
at public
order
ex-
as to justify deviatiоn from the normal
pense.
Judge Hodges found that while
appellate
by way
procedure
appeal
and
Reynolds
indigent
the purposes
was
require
the immediate attention
counsel to
pa-
contest
court.4
stating
opinion,
(2)
action;
(3) grants
the facts in this
we have
or
or
discontinues the
petitioner’s
facts,
relied
statement of
new trial.
here,
agreed
(d)
which insofar
utilized
was
Where such an order or
in-
decision
the state.
controlling question
volves a
of law as to
ground
which there is substantial
for differ-
Reynolds’ earnings
2. The state denied that
dis-
opinion,
ence of
and where an immediate and
qualified
representation
him
Alaska
present
of such
or
review
order
decision
Legal
pointed
agency
Services
out that the
materially advance the ultimate termination
did not contradict
the state's
assertion that
litigation.
Legal
represent Reyn-
Services could
4.Appellate
24(a) specifies:
Rule
olds if it wanted to.
Petitions
Review.
Appellate
(d)
23(c)
provide:
Rules
(a) When Granted. A review is not a mat-
Non-Appealable
right,
granted only:
Review of
(1)
Orders
Deci-
ter
or
but will be
sions.
sought
where the order or decision
to be
aggrieved party,
including
An
impor-
the State of
is of
reviewed
such substance
Alaska,
petition
justify
as set forth
tance as to
deviation from the normal
permitted
any
Rule 24
appellate
to be
to review
order
procedure by way
appeal
and to
court,
superior
or
decision
not other-
require
court;
the immediate attention of this
appealable
any
wise
(2)
under Rule
action
policy
or
where the sound
behind the
criminal,
proceeding,
civil or
general
as follows:
requiring aрpeals
rule
to be taken
only
judgments
outweighed by
from final
(c)
affecting
justice
order
From
a substantial
the claim
individual case that
right
proceeding
in an action or
which either
demands a
and immediate review of
(1)
particular
decision;
non-appealable
in effect
terminates
order or
therein;
prevents
judgment
suрerior
action and
a final
where
court has so far
cases,
many
of little
if it
on the
avail
did not
on the merits
decision
We base our
the Alaska Constitu-
clause of
process
comprehend
to be heard
due
part
person
“No
Alabama,
tion which
Powell
counsel.”
life, liberty,
proper-
deprived
45, 68-69,
shall
53 S.Ct.
77 L.Ed.
”5.
.
law.
ty, without
necessary
find
do not
it
therefore
We
*3
right
to counsel in defense of crimi-
arguments
Reyn-
Mr.
legal
discuss the
may
charges
deprivation
nal
which
result in
support
petition.
his
of
has advanced
olds
well-established,6 and we
liberty
of
is
have
537,
Zaborac,
539
P.2d
v.
525
In Otton
principles justifying appoint-
held that
the
process
referred to due
1974), we
(Alaska
ment of сounsel in criminal cases also apply
stating:
rights,
quasi-civil
certain civil
proceedings.
to
or
flexible,
concept
the
is
and
process
Due
Thus,
Otton,
we held that because of the
is
in a manner which
applied
should be
of
loss of
possibility
liberty,
a
of
nature of
in the terms of the
appropriate
required
law
of counsel in
Refu-
Joint Anti-Fascist
proceeding.
contempt
nonsupport.
a civil
proceeding for
123,
McGrath,
v.
341 U.S.
gee Committee
brought
particular
644,
817,
848
95 L.Ed.
71 S.Ct.
likely
Reynolds
Mr.
would not be
concurring).
Frankfurter
(Justice
incarceration,
result
in immediate
and no
proc-
requisite of due
“The fundamental
requested by
has been
state.
such relief
heard.”
opрortunity to be
ess
law is the
of
Nevertheless,
parent
a
a child under six-
Ordean,
385, 394, 34
234
Grannis v.
age
willfully
who
fails to
years
teen
(cita-
L.Ed.
1369
58
S.Ct.
excuse,
support,
furnish
without
lawful
Eckert,
v.
omitted).
Nichols
tions
See
subject
and
criminally
be held
liable
1973);
(Alaska
Frontier
504
1359
P.2d
imprison-
or
a
of not more than $500.00
fine
Saloon,
Beverage
v. Alcoholic
Control
Inc.
And,
not morе than twelve months or
(Alaska 1974).
ment for
Board,
657
524 P.2d
Thus,
be,
an indirect outcome of this
would
to be heard
both.7
right
“[t]he
fails,
excuse,
accepted
wilfully
departed
course
or
lawful
from the
and usual
without
care,
necessary food,
judicial proceedings,
clothing,
or
sanctioned
so far
furnish
shel-
attendance,
departure
ter,
supрort
ad-
an
court or
inferior
or
such a
medical
education
tribunal,
this
ward;
who,
call for
person
ministrative
the child or
or
supervision
review.
and
justification, wilfully
court’s
without
lawful
aban-
spouse
and leaves his
or refuses or
dons
neglects
I,
Constitution, art.
sec.
5. Alaska
spouse
necessary
with
his
consistently recognized broad
has
6. Alaskа
food,
attendance,
clothing,
or medical
shelter
pro-
rights to counsel in criminal
constitutional
ceedings,
misdemeanor,
guilty
upon
of a
and
convic-
occasions,
this court
on several
and
punishable by
a fine of not more than
tion
rights
interpreted
Alaska’s constitutional
$500,
by imprisonment
jail
or
in a
for not
protections thаn the
to afford broader
months,
However,
more than 12
or
both.
State,
right.
558 P.2d
See Blue
federal
trial,
with
of the de-
before
fendant,
the consent
State,
(Alaska
Benefield
n.12
640-43
conviction,
or after
instead of im-
1977)
(Alaska
(right to counsel
Here,
example,
it
in a paternity
is obvious that
im-
the issues
portant
may
greater
turn
take on an
rights
complexity
on the manner
even
determined,
which findings of fact are
than those
a custody
involved in
termina-
thus focusing
safeguards
attention on
tion proceeding.
the
This consideration under-
surrounding
process.
the
fact-finding
may
scores the need for
The
counsel.
court
When an
agency
the state seeks to
testimony pertaining
be
assess
undertaking
47.23.050,
Department
directs. The
shall be condi-
Under AS
the
of Law
personally
provide
mаy
legal
tioned so that
defendant shall
needed
services for
De-
appear
partment
before
court
ordered to
of Health and Social Services.
whenever
comply
do
at
so and shall
all times
with the
9.
§03 light paternity suits, of the fact that which is labeled conduct sexual Decisions effect, state, statute.11 brought by an Alaska are signifi- crime proper tests and to blood pertaining parent-child cance relationship in- scien- complex witnesses examination peculiar volved problems presented, and the necessary. may also issues tific hold process requires we that due ap- pointmеnt indigent of counsel for an de- litigation of this significant effects fendant.13 by petitioner: ably summarized per judgment, enforcement be, however, It well that Mr. Reyn- through prosecution, a criminal even haps is eligible olds receive the services of an 45 CFR upon the mandatory State. is attorney of the Alaska Legal Services Cor- nondischargeable is judgment 303.6. case is poration. The remanded a deter- 35(a)(7)), even if (11 USC bankruptcy § mination of whether such services are avail- (42 assigned to the State able, not, for and if judgment enforce 656(b)). The USC § other counsel court.14 and federal to State regard able AND REMANDED. REVERSED (AS 09.35.- laws exemptions execution 1673(b)(1)), en 080(b)(2)(A); § 15 USC Justice, BURKE, (dissenting). by the fed moneys held forceable 659); and is (42 USC government § eral respectfully I dissent. regard to the aliena enforceable without Nothing majority opinion in the or the under the of stock issued tion restriction authorities cited convinces me the de- *5 (43 Act Settlement Native Claims action, even fendant in a where adjudication 1606(h)(1)). § USC indigent, is entitled unavоidably estate father’s makes the expense public as a at matter of to a maxi allowance subject family to a procedural process. view, correct I 13.11.140), a $6,000 (AS home mum believe, contrary. is to the See v. $12,000 to maximum stead allowance Walker, 87 Wash.2d 553 1093 P.2d personal properly 13.11.125), and (AS v. (1976); Cheboygan Artibee Circuit $3,500 (AS mаximum of to a allowance Judge, Mich.App. 221 54 N.W.2d 225 imposes 13.11.130). adjudication also rev’d., Mich. (Mich.App.1974), 397 243 25.20.030), in (AS liability (Mich.1976). 248 N.W.2d 47.30.270), (AS cluding hospital care 47.25.240) his child (AS Relief General opinion petitioner’s Being also majority. age under merit, arguments I would support, obligation of In addition to the superior action of the affirm the court. affected.12 rights of inheritance that, Cleaver, this case also We note all its re- by the state with prosecuted The same considera- power.
sources ques- nature of the
tions antago- relative
tion and the apply.
nists illegitimate in a intestate succession an child criminalizes cohabitation AS 11.40.040 only through adultery or fornication. mother. state Supreme illegiti- Michigan 13.11.045(2)(B) has reached that an 13. The Court 12.AS result, Cheboygan mаy gain rights Artibee v. Circuit to intestate succes- same mate Judge, pater- through N.W.2d 248 if . 397 Mich. 243 “. sion nity father Bashaw, also, Fam.L.Rptr. Hapfel adjudication 2578 before See an is established 11, 1976). (Minn., . June death the father Supreme Court case of States recent United Gordon, prospective S.Ct. effect Trimble shall have This decision (1977), only, which establishes L.Ed.2d aside permit equal protection gone judgment. it would violate other case which