Forthoffer v. State, A-13483

CourtCourt of Appeals of Alaska
PartiesRISCHELE FORTHOFFER, f/k/a Rischele Huntington, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
Docket NumberA-13483
Decision Date29 June 2022

RISCHELE FORTHOFFER, f/k/a Rischele Huntington, Appellant,


No. A-13483

Court of Appeals of Alaska

June 29, 2022

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Kari Kristiansen, Judge Trial Court No. 3PA-18-01800 CI

Rischele Forthoffer, in propria persona, Anchorage, 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 Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.


Rischele Forthoffer (formerly known as Rischele Huntington) agreed to plead guilty to one count of attempted second-degree sexual abuse of a minor[1] in exchange for dismissal of numerous counts of first- and second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. At open sentencing, the court imposed 10 years with 6 years suspended. Forthoffer did not file an appeal.


Approximately nineteen months after the judgment was entered, Forthoffer filed an application (and later amended applications) for post-conviction relief. Principally, Forthoffer sought to remove a statement from her presentence report asserting that she had performed fellatio on the victim. Forthoffer also argued that her attorney in the trial court provided ineffective assistance because, according to Forthoffer, he had "unilaterally decided not to appeal" her case without discussing the matter with her. The State moved to dismiss Forthoffer's application on multiple grounds.

Ultimately, the superior court dismissed Forthoffer's application as untimely because it was filed outside the eighteen-month statute of limitations.[2] The court also concluded that, in any event, Forthoffer had failed to plead a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel because she did not provide an affidavit from her former attorney or explain why one was unavailable.[3] And the court ruled that any freestanding collateral attack on the language in the presentence report was barred because the claim could have been raised on direct appeal.[4]

In a motion for reconsideration, Forthoffer conceded that her application was time-barred but she nonetheless asked the superior court to reconsider her claims for post-conviction relief. The court denied Forthoffer's motion.


On appeal, Forthoffer does not dispute that her application was time-barred. Nor does she renew her challenge to her former attorney's performance. Rather, Forthoffer maintains that she is entitled to dispute the assertion in her...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT