Barr v. State

• Decision Date: 30 November 2022
• Docket Number: A-13551
• Parties: RONALD K. BARR JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
• Court: Alaska Court of Appeals

RONALD K. BARR JR., Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-13551

Court of Appeals of Alaska

November 30, 2022

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, Second Judicial District, at Kotzebue, Trial Court No. 2KB-13-00261 CI Paul A. Roetman, Judge.

Marilyn J. Kamm, Attorney at Law, Anchorage, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, for the Appellant.

Nancy R. Simel, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

Ronald K. Barr Jr. appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief. Barr was convicted of physically and sexually assaulting a woman near Kotzebue, and we have previously described the facts of Barr's case in his direct appeal.^[1] Following that appeal, Barr filed an application for post-conviction relief alleging, inter alia, that his appellate attorney was ineffective for failing to argue on appeal that the trial court erred when it allowed a trooper to testify that the victim's

1

injuries were caused by a physical assault. The superior court ultimately dismissed Barr's application. Barr now raises three issues on appeal.

First, Barr argues that the court erred when it characterized the State's response to his application as a motion to dismiss and asked Barr to respond. We reject this claim. Although the State's response was not labeled "Motion to Dismiss," it clearly and unambiguously asked the court to dismiss Barr's ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to state aprima facie claim for relief. The court therefore did not err in characterizing it as a motion to dismiss and seeking a response from Barr.^[2]

In connection with this argument, Barr also argues that the court erred when it only granted him seven days to respond, in violation of Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1 (f)(1), which provides that an applicant shall have thirty days to respond to a motion to dismiss. We also reject this claim. The court imposed the seven-day time period only after Barr failed to file a response within the original thirty-day period mandated by Criminal Rule 35.1(f)(1).^[3] Additionally, we note that Barr sought and received a one-week extension after the court imposed the original seven-day deadline, and that Barr then filed a response without seeking any additional extensions. Thus, Barr has failed to demonstrate that the filing deadline imposed by the court was unreasonable or caused him prejudice.

Second, Barr...