Patterson v. State, 112818 AKCA, A-12592
|Opinion Judge:||MANNHEIMER, JUDGE.|
|Party Name:||TOMMIE G. PATTERSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, for the Appellant. Eric A Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Coats, Senior Judge.|
|Case Date:||November 28, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Alaska|
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court Trial Court No. 3PA-12-1630 CI, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Eric Smith, Judge.
Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, under contract with the Office of Public Advocacy, for the Appellant.
Eric A Ringsmuth, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Criminal Appeals, Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, and Coats, Senior Judge. [*]
Tommie G. Patterson appeals the superior court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.
Patterson's first claim for relief arose from the fact that Patterson had co-counsel status at his criminal trial, and he was allowed to file his own motions. In his petition for post-conviction relief, Patterson argued that his defense attorney improperly impeded his ability to file pro se motions attacking his indictment, in that the attorney refused to provide Patterson with a copy of the grand jury transcript.
But even assuming this to be true, Patterson would not be entitled to postconviction relief unless he demonstrated that he could have filed a meritorious attack on his indictment, and that this attack would have led to dismissal of the indictment with prejudice
i.e., without possibility of re-indictment. See Wilson v. State, 711 P.2d 547, 550 n. 2 (Alaska App. 1985).
Here, the superior court found that Patterson's petition for post-conviction relief failed to describe any potentially meritorious attacks on his indictment. Patterson's brief to this Court does not offer anything to rebut the superior court's conclusion. Accordingly, we uphold the superior court's rejection of this claim for relief.
Patterson's next claim was that his trial attorney, Abigail Sheldon, improperly pressured Patterson not to take the stand at his trial. This claim had two parts.
First, Patterson asserted that, toward the end of the State's case-in-chief, both Sheldon...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP