Lindoff v. State

• Docket Number: A-13801,0355
• Decision Date: 17 January 2024
• Parties: NEWTON LINDOFF, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.
• Court: Alaska Court of Appeals

1

NEWTON LINDOFF, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.

No. A-13801

No. 0355

Court of Appeals of Alaska

January 17, 2024

UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)

Appeal from the Superior Court, First Judicial District, Juneau, Trial Court No. 1JU-20-00561 CI, Philip M. Pallenberg, Judge.

Michael L. Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, for the Appellant.

Diane L. Wendlandt, 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.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION

In 2008, Newton Lindoff was charged with attempted first-degree sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and two counts of first-degree burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Lindoff pleaded guilty to one count of attempted second-degree sexual assault, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Lindoff unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his plea, and this Court affirmed the trial court's

2

denial of that motion.^[1] Lindoff then filed an application for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Lindoff's application.^[2]

In 2020, Lindoff filed, pro se, a second application for post-conviction relief and requested that the court appoint an attorney to assist him. The superior court sua sponte issued a notice of its intent to dismiss Lindoff's application, explaining that the claims raised did not fall within "the exceptions to the no-second-application rule" - i.e., Lindoff's claims did not allege ineffective assistance of his first post-conviction relief counsel,^[3] or that he had newly discovered evidence.^[4]

Lindoff then moved to amend his application, reframing his arguments around his first post-conviction relief attorney's alleged incompetence and attaching additional material purporting to support his claims. After reviewing these documents, the superior court denied Lindoff's motion and his request for counsel, and the court dismissed Lindoff's second application for post-conviction relief. The court concluded that allowing Lindoff to file an amended application for post-conviction relief "would be futile" and that his application failed to allege any facts that would establish ineffectiveness on the part of his post-conviction relief counsel. The court also stated that "[b]ased on those conclusions,...