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

Judge ALLARD.

In 1998, Etta M. Bavilla pleaded no contest to first-degree murder after she stabbed her infant son to death during a schizophrenia-induced episode. As part of the plea agreement resolving the case, Bavilla stipulated to a sentence of 60 years' imprisonment with 20 years suspended (40 years to serve). After accepting the plea agreement, the superior court concluded that Bavilla was guilty but mentally ill.1 Bavilla subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of her trial counsel related to the plea. That petition was denied in 2004.

In 2012, Bavilla filed a second petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of her post-conviction counsel on her first petition. Bavilla requested court-appointed counsel to represent her in the second petition.

Superior Court Judge Pat L. Douglass dismissed the second petition without appointing counsel to assist Bavilla in litigating her second petition. The judge concluded that Bavilla was not entitled to the assistance of court-appointed counsel because she had not been diligent in raising her ineffective assistance of counsel claim and thus had failed to state a prima facie claim for relief.

On appeal, Bavilla argues that the superior court erred in denying her request for court-appointed counsel. She also argues that the court erred in dismissing the case on the pleadings.

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the superior court erred in failing to appoint Bavilla counsel to assist her in litigating her second petition. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel, we do not reach Bavilla's other argument.

As a general matter, a defendant has no right to counsel for successive petitions for post-conviction relief.2 However, in Grinols v. State, we held that "the superior court has the authority, under the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution, to appoint counsel for a defendant if the court concludes that a lawyer's assistance is needed for a fair and meaningful litigation of the defendant's claim."3 The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed this holding in its Grinols decision.4

The State concedes that the judge failed to conduct an appropriate Grinols analysis in Bavilla's case. The State also concedes that, given Bavilla's history of mental illness, the superior court should have appointed counsel to assist her. We find these concessions to be well-founded.5

We therefore REVERSE the order of the superior court dismissing Bavilla's petition and REMAND this case to the superior court for further proceedings on Bavilla's second petition for post-conviction relief.