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

Edward J. Henn appeals the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. For the reasons explained here, we affirm the superior court's judgment.

In December 2012, Henn pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography as part of a plea agreement. The trial judge accepted the plea without advising Henn of the statutory minimum and maximum sentences.

In June 2013, Henn later filed a post-conviction relief application, and then, through counsel, he filed an amended application. In the amended petition, Henn contended that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea based on this incomplete advisement. Henn did not assert that he was unaware of the applicable sentencing range and would not have pleaded guilty had the court properly advised him.

Relying on Allen v. State,1 Peterson v. State,2 and Lindoff v. State,3 the superior court dismissed Henn's application. The court reasoned that Henn had not provided an affidavit or other information to establish that he suffered prejudice from the court's incomplete advisement.

In Lindoff, this Court discussed its approach to cases where the defendant receives an improper advisement under Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c).4 There, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault, but the trial court judge failed to advise Lindoff of the requirement that he register as a sex offender for life.5 Based on this, before he was sentenced, Lindoff moved to withdraw his plea; the trial court denied the motion, and Lindoff appealed.6

On appeal, we held that regardless of who bears the burden of proving prejudice or lack of prejudice, the defendant bore a burden of production to show that he was unaware of the information omitted under Rule 11 and would not have pleaded guilty if he had been aware of the information.7 Because Lindoff did not even suggest that he would not have pleaded guilty if given a proper Rule 11 advisement, this Court affirmed the dismissal of his motion to withdraw his plea.8 Henn concedes that he has not met the burden of production under Lindoff.

Henn instead contends that this Court should overturn Lindoff. Henn argues that Lindoff was wrongly decided based on a misunderstanding of Alaska law and because policy concerns support placing the burden on the State to demonstrate substantial compliance with Rule 11.

Convincing this Court to overturn an existing precedent is a "heavy threshold burden" and requires convincing this Court that the prior decision was originally erroneous or is no longer sound due to changed circumstances, and that more good than harm would result from overturning precedent.9

Henn has not met his burden of showing that Lindoff was incorrectly decided. Nor has he identified any changed circumstance that would justify departure from Lindoff.

We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Henn's application for post-conviction relief.