Olson v. Houser
Decision Date | 14 May 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 3:17-cv-00111-JKS,3:17-cv-00111-JKS |
Parties | GLENN OLSON, Petitioner, v. EARL HOUSER, Superintendent, Goose Creek Correctional Center, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Glenn Olson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Olson is in the custody of the Alaska Department of Corrections and incarcerated at Goose Creek Correctional Center. Respondent has answered, and Olson has replied.
On April 4, 2008, Olson was charged with second-degree sexual assault and fourth-degree assault. Following his arraignment, Olson was appointed counsel and pleaded not guilty. He subsequently moved pre-trial to represent himself. After numerous hearings, the trial court ruled that Olson could represent himself and would be permitted to have appointed counsel serveas advisory counsel. On direct appeal of his conviction, the Alaska Court of Appeals laid out the following facts underlying the charges against Olson and the procedural background of his case:
Olsen v. State, No. A-10782, 2013 WL 596524, at *1-2 (Alaska Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2013).
Olson proceeded to a jury trial with advisory counsel. After conducting voir dire pro se, Olson indicated that he no longer wished to represent himself and requested that his advisory counsel take over the case. The trial court granted the request, and Olson's attorney handled the case from opening arguments through the verdict.
During trial, M.B. testified that she could not remember the events of that night due to her intoxication and had no memory of the alleged sexual assault, but the State relied on the testimony of other witnesses, as described in the Court of Appeals' factual summary above, to argue that a sexual assault had occurred. Olson testified that M.B. initiated sex and that he believed that she consented to the sexual activity. He also sought to admit the testimony of Jack Allen, a cab driver in Dillingham, who would testify that, when M.B. was intoxicated, she had acted in a flirtatious and seductive manner toward Allen when he had given her a ride in his cab. The trial court concluded that the proposed testimony was not admissible.
At the conclusion of trial, the jury convicted Olson as charged. Following the conviction, Olson moved for a new trial, claiming that his attorney had exhibited racial bias against him and had threatened him in an attempt to coerce him into entering a guilty plea. The superior court found that Olson's claims were not credible and denied the motions.
Olson then sought to represent himself at sentencing. Following a hearing, the trial courtpermitted Olson to present any written or oral legal and factual arguments to the court during sentencing proceedings, and also permitted Olson's attorney to make any arguments. The trial court sentenced Olson to 25 years' imprisonment with 5 years suspended and 15 years' probation on the second-degree sexual assault charge, and a consecutive term of 1 year imprisonment with 180 days suspended and a 5-year probationary period on the fourth-degree assault charge. The trial court also ordered that Olson have no contact with Togiak during the 5-year period of probation imposed on the fourth-degree assault charge and that Olson register as a sex offender for a period of 15 years after his unconditional discharge for the sexual assault charge as well as during his period of probation. After sentencing, Olson filed a motion for a hearing so that he could obtain bail on appeal. The State opposed the motion, arguing among other things that Olson was ineligible for bail pending appeal under ALASKA STAT. § 12.30.040(b)(2) because he had been convicted of a sexual felony.3 The superior court denied the motion "for the reasons put forth by the state."
Pursuant to Olson's request for self-representation, the trial court allowed Olson to represent himself on appeal. Olson filed a pro se brief arguing that: 1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress; 2) the trial court erred by "not granting in propria persona before trial and after;" 3) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to admit character evidence of the victim; 4) the superior court did not have jurisdiction over Olson; 5) he received the ineffective assistance of counsel; and 6) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for bail pending appeal. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed Olson's convictions in a reasoned, unpublished opinion issued on February 13, 2013. Olsen, 2013 WL 596524, at *5. It nonetheless remanded Olson's case for the trial court to revisit the bail pendingappeal issue and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. The appellate court concluded that the record was insufficient for the trial court to deny the ineffective assistance claim without holding an evidentiary hearing and that the trial court erred in denying the bail pending appeal issue by relying on amendments to the bail statute that did not become effective until after Olson had filed his petition for a bail hearing. Id.
On remand, the superior court held an evidentiary hearing at which Olson testified in support of his allegations. Olson's attorney testified that she did not use racial slurs or exhibit bias against Olson. She also testified that she made no threats to Olson and that she was prepared for his trial. She further testified that, whenever possible, she had another attorney or witness present when communicating with Olson. The superior court found the attorney's testimony credible, concluding that the attorney's performance at trial corroborated her testimony that she was prepared for trial and that Olson's demeanor in court was consistent with...
To continue reading
Request your trial