Belluomini v. State, 052020 AKCA, A-13116
|Opinion Judge:||ALLARD Judge.|
|Party Name:||ROBERT LEE BELLUOMINI, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Michael Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant. Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Kevin G. Clarkson, Attorney General, Juneau, for the App...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison, Judge.|
|Case Date:||May 20, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Alaska|
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court No. 3AN-16-04993 CI, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Mark Rindner, Judge.
Michael Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Eric A. Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Kevin G. Clarkson, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison, Judge.
Robert Lee Belluomini appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief. The superior court dismissed Belluomini's application after his court-appointed attorney filed a certificate of no merit under Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1(e)(2)(C). The State concedes that the certificate of no merit was deficient and that the superior court failed to independently evaluate Belluomini's potential claims. Having reviewed the pleadings and record, we conclude that the State's concessions are well founded.1
In 2010, Belluomini was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor for conduct involving his girlfriend's fifteen-year-old daughter. He filed an appeal, and we affirmed Belluomini's convictions, but we directed the superior court to merge the convictions and resentence Belluomini.3
Belluomini then filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging his attorneys at trial and sentencing were ineffective. The court appointed an attorney to represent Belluomini, who conducted an investigation and later filed a certificate pursuant to Criminal Rule 35.1(e)(2)(C) stating that Belluomini had no arguable claims for relief. Based on the certificate of no merit, and with no discussion of Belluomini's potential claims, the superior court dismissed Belluomini's application for postconviction relief.
On appeal, Belluomini contends that the certificate of no merit was deficient. Under Rule 35.1 (e)(3), a certificate of no merit must include a full description of the claims the attorney considered, the materials the attorney reviewed, the investigations the attorney conducted, and the reasons why the attorney has concluded that all...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP