Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120 (2026)
Determination of indigency; repayment
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 18.85.120. Determination of indigency; repayment.
(a) The determination of a person's indigency shall be made by the court in which an action against the person is pending. The determination shall be made by the court and shall set out the basis for the finding that the person is indigent.
(b) In determining whether a person is indigent and in determining the extent of the person's inability to pay, the court shall consider such factors as income, property owned, outstanding obligations, and the number and ages of dependents. Release on bail does not preclude a finding that a person is indigent. In each case, the person, subject to the penalties for perjury, shall certify under oath, and in writing or by other record, material factors relative to the person's financial resources and ability to pay that the court prescribes.
(c) Upon the person's conviction, the court may enter a judgment that a person for whom counsel is appointed pay for services of representation and court costs. Enforcement of a judgment under this subsection may be stayed by the trial court or the appellate court during the pendency of an appeal of the person's conviction. Upon a showing of financial hardship, the court (1) shall allow a person subject to a judgment entered under this subsection to make payments under a payment schedule; (2) shall allow a person subject to a judgment entered under this subsection to petition the court at any time for remission, reduction, or deferral of the unpaid portion of the judgment; and (3) may remit or reduce the balance owing on the judgment or change the method of payment if the payment would impose manifest hardship on the person or the person's immediate family. Payments made under this subsection shall be paid into the state general fund.
(d) Except as provided in AS 18.85.100(e), as a condition of receiving services under this chapter, a person shall affirm indigency under oath to the court and execute a general waiver authorizing the release to the court of income information regarding any income source the person has had for a period of three years immediately preceding the person's first court appearance in connection with each cause. At the conclusion of all services by the public defender to the person, the court shall upon request release to the attorney general all information received under this subsection except information that might incriminate or tend to incriminate the person.
(a) The determination of a person's indigency shall be made by the court in which an action against the person is pending. The determination shall be made by the court and shall set out the basis for the finding that the person is indigent.
(b) In determining whether a person is indigent and in determining the extent of the person's inability to pay, the court shall consider such factors as income, property owned, outstanding obligations, and the number and ages of dependents. Release on bail does not preclude a finding that a person is indigent. In each case, the person, subject to the penalties for perjury, shall certify under oath, and in writing or by other record, material factors relative to the person's financial resources and ability to pay that the court prescribes.
(c) Upon the person's conviction, the court may enter a judgment that a person for whom counsel is appointed pay for services of representation and court costs. Enforcement of a judgment under this subsection may be stayed by the trial court or the appellate court during the pendency of an appeal of the person's conviction. Upon a showing of financial hardship, the court (1) shall allow a person subject to a judgment entered under this subsection to make payments under a payment schedule; (2) shall allow a person subject to a judgment entered under this subsection to petition the court at any time for remission, reduction, or deferral of the unpaid portion of the judgment; and (3) may remit or reduce the balance owing on the judgment or change the method of payment if the payment would impose manifest hardship on the person or the person's immediate family. Payments made under this subsection shall be paid into the state general fund.
(d) Except as provided in AS 18.85.100(e), as a condition of receiving services under this chapter, a person shall affirm indigency under oath to the court and execute a general waiver authorizing the release to the court of income information regarding any income source the person has had for a period of three years immediately preceding the person's first court appearance in connection with each cause. At the conclusion of all services by the public defender to the person, the court shall upon request release to the attorney general all information received under this subsection except information that might incriminate or tend to incriminate the person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1984–2016 · leading case: State v. Albert, 899 P.2d 103 (Alaska 1995).
State v. Albert, 899 P.2d 103 (Alaska 1995). “Alaska’s system is set forth in AS 18.85.120(c), Alaska Criminal Rule 39, and Alaska Appellate Rule 209(b).”
George v. State, 944 P.2d 1181 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). “Yet, to this court’s knowledge, AS 18.85.120 has never been construed to forbid such a hearing.”
State v. Hofseth, 822 P.2d 1376 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “120(d) by releasing “information that might incriminate or tend to incriminate” him. According to Hofseth, this breach of confidentiality led directly to the seizure of the DeLorean which, in turn, resulted in his prosecution for insurance fraud.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 476 A.2d 381 (Pa. 1984). “See: Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120 ; Ga.Code Ann. § 17-12-10; Idaho Code § 19-854 ; Ky.”
Alexiadis v. State, 369 P.3d 561 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “In its response, the State discusses both the wording and the legislative history of AS 18.85.120, and the State concludes that the statute is ambiguous on the question of whether attorney's fees can be imposed on defendants who pursue appellate litigation before any judgement…”
Malutin v. State, 27 P.3d 792 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “At that time, Public Defender (now Chief Justice) Dana Fabe convinced the court that this proposal was inconsistent with existing statutes-in particular, AS 18.85.120(c). 1 The supreme court then decided to ask the legislature to amend this statute.”
Benson v. State, 160 P.3d 161 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “First, there is no indication in the log notes that Judge Hopwood ever followed any of the procedures set out in Criminal Rule 39(b)(1) and AS 18.85.120. Furthermore, given the fact that Benson consistently denied both before and after this hearing that he had the *165 financial…”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120(a) — 1 case
Benson v. State, 160 P.3d 161 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “First, there is no indication in the log notes that Judge Hopwood ever followed any of the procedures set out in Criminal Rule 39(b)(1) and AS 18.85.120. Furthermore, given the fact that Benson consistently denied both before and after this hearing that he had the *165 financial…”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120(b) — 2 cases
George v. State, 944 P.2d 1181 (Alaska Ct. App. 1997). “Yet, to this court’s knowledge, AS 18.85.120 has never been construed to forbid such a hearing.”
Benson v. State, 160 P.3d 161 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “First, there is no indication in the log notes that Judge Hopwood ever followed any of the procedures set out in Criminal Rule 39(b)(1) and AS 18.85.120. Furthermore, given the fact that Benson consistently denied both before and after this hearing that he had the *165 financial…”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120(c) — 3 cases
State v. Albert, 899 P.2d 103 (Alaska 1995). “Alaska’s system is set forth in AS 18.85.120(c), Alaska Criminal Rule 39, and Alaska Appellate Rule 209(b).”
Alexiadis v. State, 369 P.3d 561 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “In its response, the State discusses both the wording and the legislative history of AS 18.85.120, and the State concludes that the statute is ambiguous on the question of whether attorney's fees can be imposed on defendants who pursue appellate litigation before any judgement…”
Malutin v. State, 27 P.3d 792 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “At that time, Public Defender (now Chief Justice) Dana Fabe convinced the court that this proposal was inconsistent with existing statutes-in particular, AS 18.85.120(c). 1 The supreme court then decided to ask the legislature to amend this statute.”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120(d) — 1 case
State v. Hofseth, 822 P.2d 1376 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991). “120(d) by releasing “information that might incriminate or tend to incriminate” him. According to Hofseth, this breach of confidentiality led directly to the seizure of the DeLorean which, in turn, resulted in his prosecution for insurance fraud.”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.85.120(e) — 1 case
State v. Albert, 899 P.2d 103 (Alaska 1995). “Alaska’s system is set forth in AS 18.85.120(c), Alaska Criminal Rule 39, and Alaska Appellate Rule 209(b).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.