BRANDON v. STATE, 6248. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Alaska
Number: inakco20151028000
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 28, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2015
Summary: 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 PER CURIAM . Richard Charles Brandon filed an application for post-conviction relief. The superior court granted the State's motion to dismiss the application.
Summary: 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 PER CURIAM . Richard Charles Brandon filed an application for post-conviction relief. The superior court granted the State's motion to dismiss the application. O..
More
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
PER CURIAM.
Richard Charles Brandon filed an application for post-conviction relief. The superior court granted the State's motion to dismiss the application. On appeal, Brandon contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the proceedings below. Although the State disagrees with Brandon's claim of error, the State concedes that the superior court erred by granting its motion to dismiss the application without waiting for an attorney to appear on Brandon's behalf and giving that attorney an opportunity to respond to the State's motion. We have reviewed the record and find the State's concession is well-taken.1
Accordingly, the superior courts dismissal of this action is REVERSED and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. We do not retain jurisdiction of this case.
FootNotes
* Sitting by assignment made pursuant to Article IV, Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution and Administrative Rule 24(d).
1. See Marks v. State, 496 P.2d 66, 67-68 (Alaska 1972) (requiring an appellate court to independently assess any concession of error by the State in a criminal case).
Source: Leagle
