Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) and Paragraph 7 of the Guidelines for Publication of Court of Appeals Decisions (Court of Appeals Order No. 3). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited as binding authority for any proposition of law.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MANNHEIMER, Judge.

The petitioner, T.P., is a minor who was accused of delinquency in two separate proceedings, one filed in Bethel and the other filed in Palmer. T.P. and some of the important witnesses now live in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (i.e., within the Palmer venue district). The State, seeking to consolidate the trial of these two delinquency proceedings, dismissed the Bethel case and then re-filed the Palmer case to include the Bethel allegations.

T.P.'s attorney argued that this was an improper circumvention of the venue rules, and the attorney asked the superior court to strike the Bethel allegations from the re-filed Palmer case. The superior court refused to do so, and T.P. then petitioned this Court to review the superior court's decision. We granted review and ordered the parties to formally brief this issue.

After T.P.'s attorney filed the opening brief, the State responded by filing a motion for summary disposition of T.P.'s petition. In this motion, the State conceded that if the State wished to hold one consolidated trial in Palmer that would include both the Bethel allegations and the Palmer allegations, the State was obliged to first seek a change of venue from the Bethel superior court, and then file a motion in the Palmer superior court asking for joinder of the two sets of allegations.

The State's concession appears to be well-founded.

Alaska Delinquency Rule 21(c) declares that venue in delinquency cases is governed by the same venue law that applies to criminal cases. See also Delinquency Rule 1(e), which explicitly declares that Alaska Criminal Rule 18 (the rule governing venue) applies to delinquency proceedings.

The delinquency charges in the Bethel case arise from acts allegedly committed in the village of Kwethluk. Under Criminal Rule 18(b)(1), Bethel is the presumptive trial site for superior court cases arising in Kwethluk.

Criminal Rules 18(b)(3) and 18(g), in combination, provide that either party to the proceeding may seek a change of venue under AS 22.10.040. And the pertinent clause of AS 22.10.040 allows a court to order a change of venue "when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change". However, we agree with the State that the assessments of "convenience" and the "ends of justice" must be made by the court that currently has venue, not by the court that would have venue if the party's motion were granted.

The wording of the statute supports this conclusion: "The superior court in which the action is pending may change the place of trial ... for any of the following reasons[.]" And see Ketchikan General Hospital v. Dunnagan, 757 P.2d 57 (Alaska 1988), where the Alaska Supreme Court held that even though there may be excellent reasons to litigate a court action in some location other than its presumptive venue site, "plaintiffs ... must commence [their] suit in the proper ... venue, and then, if that forum is inconvenient, move for a change of venue under AS 22.10.040." Id. at 59. The supreme court explained that it was adopting this policy "[to] ensure that the superior court in the proper venue, rather than [the superior court] in the venue of the plaintiff's choosing, makes the initial determination as to which forum is convenient." Ibid.

T.P. asks us to resolve the further question of whether it is ever proper for the State to file a single, consolidated criminal complaint, or a single, consolidated delinquency petition, in situations where a defendant or a minor is accused of committing a continuing series of criminal acts, some committed in one venue district and some committed in another venue district. Given the facts of the case before us, we need not resolve this issue.

The decision of the superior court is REVERSED. The allegations arising from acts allegedly committed by T.P. in the Bethel venue district must be struck from the Palmer delinquency petition.