Filed: Apr. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 03, 2019
Summary: NOTICE This is a summary disposition issued under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(b). Summary disposition decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent and are not available in a publicly accessible electronic database. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). SUMMARY DISPOSITION Michael Joseph Davis Jr., appeals the district court's dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief after his attorney submitted a certificate of no merit. 1 Davis argues that the district court failed
Summary: NOTICE This is a summary disposition issued under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(b). Summary disposition decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent and are not available in a publicly accessible electronic database. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). SUMMARY DISPOSITION Michael Joseph Davis Jr., appeals the district court's dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief after his attorney submitted a certificate of no merit. 1 Davis argues that the district court failed ..
More
NOTICE
This is a summary disposition issued under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(b). Summary disposition decisions of this Court do not create legal precedent and are not available in a publicly accessible electronic database. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d).
SUMMARY DISPOSITION
Michael Joseph Davis Jr., appeals the district court's dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief after his attorney submitted a certificate of no merit.1
Davis argues that the district court failed to follow the requirements of Alaska Criminal Rule 35.1(f)(2) before dismissing Davis's application — specifically, the court should have independently assessed whether it appeared that Davis was not entitled to relief, should have issued an order explaining its own reasons for reaching that conclusion, and should have given Davis an opportunity to respond to that order.2 The State concedes that the court failed to take these steps and that a remand is appropriate. We have independently reviewed the record and find the State's concession to be well-founded.3
Davis also argues that the no-merit certificate filed by his attorney was deficient under Criminal Rule 35.1(e)(2) and (3) and our opinion in Griffin v. State.4 The State does not respond to this argument, but we agree with Davis that his attorney's certificate was deficient. Most notably, a certificate of no merit "must provide the court with a full explanation of all the claims the attorney has considered and why the attorney has concluded that these claims are frivolous."5 The certificate filed by Davis's attorney, however, simply stated that he "was unable to discern any other colorable claims for relief."
We therefore VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings. On remand, Davis's attorney should either file an amended application for post-conviction relief or a no-merit certificate that complies with Criminal Rule 35.1(e)(2) and (3) and Griffin. If Davis's attorney files a no-merit certificate, the court should then follow the procedures described in Criminal Rule 35.1(f)(2).6
