necessary factors in Alaska

2024First, although the court contends that the superior court failed to engage in the necessary analysis, the supposed missing analysis can be found at Appendix pages 33- 1 816 P.2d 140 (Alaska 1991). 2 Stumbaugh v. State, 599 P.2d 166 , 173 n.15 (Alaska 1979) (referring to “general rule that on appeal, facts are viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment”); id. at 172-73 (applying that rule to reviewing denial of evidence suppression motion and to reviewing conviction for sufficiency of supporting evidence). - 19 - 2059 35 and 39-41, fully supported by the superior court’s acc

2024First, although the court contends that the superior court failed to engage in the necessary analysis, the supposed missing analysis can be found at Appendix pages 33- 1 816 P.2d 140 (Alaska 1991). 2 Stumbaugh v. State, 599 P.2d 166 , 173 n.15 (Alaska 1979) (referring to “general rule that on appeal, facts are viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment”); id. at 172-73 (applying that rule to reviewing denial of evidence suppression motion and to reviewing conviction for sufficiency of supporting evidence). - 19 - 2059 35 and 39-41, fully supported by the superior court’s acc

2024Regardless of how new instructions might turn out, as they stand now they are constitutionally unsound because they actively mislead grand jurors into thinking they lack powers which, as articulated by Vasquez, are clearly vested in them.”); Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at 1216 (Hawkins, J., joined by Pregerson, Wardlow, W.

2024Regardless of how new instructions might turn out, as they stand now they are constitutionally unsound because they actively mislead grand jurors into thinking they lack powers which, as articulated by Vasquez, are clearly vested in them.”); Navarro-Vargas, 408 F.3d at 1216 (Hawkins, J., joined by Pregerson, Wardlow, W.

2022The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation cannot be harmless.”). 4 Massey, 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska App. 2008) (“[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of representation (and the attendant dangers) unless the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.”). 5 McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91-92. 6 Id.; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by the

2022Agency, 816 P.2d 1358, 1360 (Alaska 1991). 10 See Massey v. State, 435 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Alaska App. 2018); McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91; see also 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 6-3.6(a) & cmt. at 57-61 (Approved Draft 2000) (explaining a trial court’s necessary inquiry when a defendant wishes to proceed pro se). –4– 2729 The representation hearing At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court clarified with Hinshaw that Hinshaw was seeking to represent himself regardless of whether his attorney was dismissed as counsel.

2022The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation cannot be harmless.”). 4 Massey, 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska App. 2008) (“[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of representation (and the attendant dangers) unless the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.”). 5 McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91-92. 6 Id.; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by the

2022The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation cannot be harmless.”). 4 Massey, 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska App. 2008) (“[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of representation (and the attendant dangers) unless the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.”). 5 McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91-92. 6 Id.; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by the

2022The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation cannot be harmless.”). 4 Massey, 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska App. 2008) (“[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of representation (and the attendant dangers) unless the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.”). 5 McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91-92. 6 Id.; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by the

2022Agency, 816 P.2d 1358, 1360 (Alaska 1991). 10 See Massey v. State, 435 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Alaska App. 2018); McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91; see also 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 6-3.6(a) & cmt. at 57-61 (Approved Draft 2000) (explaining a trial court’s necessary inquiry when a defendant wishes to proceed pro se). –4– 2729 The representation hearing At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court clarified with Hinshaw that Hinshaw was seeking to represent himself regardless of whether his attorney was dismissed as counsel.

2022The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation cannot be harmless.”). 4 Massey, 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska App. 2008) (“[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of representation (and the attendant dangers) unless the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.”). 5 McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91-92. 6 Id.; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by the

2022The right is either respected or denied; its deprivation cannot be harmless.”). 4 Massey, 435 P.3d at 1009-10; see also Johnson v. State, 188 P.3d 700, 704 (Alaska App. 2008) (“[A] trial judge has no duty to fully advise a defendant concerning the right of representation (and the attendant dangers) unless the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal request for self-representation.”). 5 McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91-92. 6 Id.; see also James v. State, 739 P.2d 1314, 1316 n.1 (Alaska App. 1987) (quoting the Commentary to the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice to explain the necessary inquiry by the

2022Agency, 816 P.2d 1358, 1360 (Alaska 1991). 10 See Massey v. State, 435 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Alaska App. 2018); McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91; see also 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 6-3.6(a) & cmt. at 57-61 (Approved Draft 2000) (explaining a trial court’s necessary inquiry when a defendant wishes to proceed pro se). –4– 2729 The representation hearing At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court clarified with Hinshaw that Hinshaw was seeking to represent himself regardless of whether his attorney was dismissed as counsel.

2022Agency, 816 P.2d 1358, 1360 (Alaska 1991). 10 See Massey v. State, 435 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Alaska App. 2018); McCracken, 518 P.2d at 91; see also 3 ABA Standards for Criminal Justice § 6-3.6(a) & cmt. at 57-61 (Approved Draft 2000) (explaining a trial court’s necessary inquiry when a defendant wishes to proceed pro se). –4– 2729 The representation hearing At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court clarified with Hinshaw that Hinshaw was seeking to represent himself regardless of whether his attorney was dismissed as counsel.

2014Id., 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d at 592 ; see also id., 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d at 590 trial courts retain the authority to allocate the dependency exemption by ordering the custodial parent to execute the necessary waiver.").

2014Id., 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d at 592 ; see also id., 283 Cal.Rptr. 405 , 812 P.2d at 590 trial courts retain the authority to allocate the dependency exemption by ordering the custodial parent to execute the necessary waiver.").

2013Id. at 953 ("The necessary inquiry requires an examination of 'case-specific evidence' of each parent's capability to care for the child.") (quoting West v. West, 21 P.3d 838, 843 (Alaska 2001)). 27 .

2005Horutz v. Horutz, 560 P.2d 397, 399 (Alaska 1977). 2 .

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti

1999Cf. Bellanich, 936 P.2d at 146 (Fabe, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting in context of property division case that findings need not be extensive); D.H. v. State., DHSS, 929 P.2d 650, 657 (Alaska 1996) (Fabe, J., dissenting) (arguing that, in a CINA proceeding, the court's findings or the record need only show the bases for the court's decision). [4] See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the cour

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti

1999Cf. Bellanich, 936 P.2d at 146 (Fabe, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting in context of property division case that findings need not be extensive); D.H. v. State., DHSS, 929 P.2d 650, 657 (Alaska 1996) (Fabe, J., dissenting) (arguing that, in a CINA proceeding, the court's findings or the record need only show the bases for the court's decision). [4] See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the cour

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti

1999Cf. Bellanich, 936 P.2d at 146 (Fabe, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting in context of property division case that findings need not be extensive); D.H. v. State., DHSS, 929 P.2d 650, 657 (Alaska 1996) (Fabe, J., dissenting) (arguing that, in a CINA proceeding, the court's findings or the record need only show the bases for the court's decision). [4] See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the cour

1999Cf. Bellanich, 936 P.2d at 146 (Fabe, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting in context of property division case that findings need not be extensive); D.H. v. State., DHSS, 929 P.2d 650, 657 (Alaska 1996) (Fabe, J., dissenting) (arguing that, in a CINA proceeding, the court's findings or the record need only show the bases for the court's decision). [4] See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the cour

1999Cf. Bellanich, 936 P.2d at 146 (Fabe, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting in context of property division case that findings need not be extensive); D.H. v. State., DHSS, 929 P.2d 650, 657 (Alaska 1996) (Fabe, J., dissenting) (arguing that, in a CINA proceeding, the court's findings or the record need only show the bases for the court's decision). [4] See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the cour

1999Michael argues this point only to the extent that he includes a sentence in his brief stating that stability and continuity are legitimate custody factors and inaccurately claims that the trial court "did not make any findings at all with respect to any of the [factors]." [16] Op. at 209. [17] See id. [18] Op. at 211. [19] 932 P.2d 777 (Alaska 1997). [20] See id. at 780 . [21] Constantini v. Constantini, 171 Mich.App. 466 , 430 N.W.2d 748, 750 (1988). [22] See Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 139 (Alaska 1997). [23] Although the court's expressed concern is that the trial judge fail

1999Michael argues this point only to the extent that he includes a sentence in his brief stating that stability and continuity are legitimate custody factors and inaccurately claims that the trial court "did not make any findings at all with respect to any of the [factors]." [16] Op. at 209. [17] See id. [18] Op. at 211. [19] 932 P.2d 777 (Alaska 1997). [20] See id. at 780 . [21] Constantini v. Constantini, 171 Mich.App. 466 , 430 N.W.2d 748, 750 (1988). [22] See Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132, 139 (Alaska 1997). [23] Although the court's expressed concern is that the trial judge fail

1999Cf. Bellanich, 936 P.2d at 146 (Fabe, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting in context of property division case that findings need not be extensive); D.H. v. State., DHSS, 929 P.2d 650, 657 (Alaska 1996) (Fabe, J., dissenting) (arguing that, in a CINA proceeding, the court's findings or the record need only show the bases for the court's decision). [4] See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the cour

1999See, e.g., McDanold, 718 P.2d at 469 -70 (citing cases); In re Marriage of Lester, 791 P.2d 1244, 1246 (Colo.App.1990) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if the record as a whole indicates that the court considered the necessary factors); In re Marriage of Diehl, 221 Ill.App.3d 410 , 164 Ill.Dec. 73 , 582 N.E.2d 281, 290 (1991) (same); Peterson v. Peterson, 408 N.W.2d 901, 903 (Minn.App.1987) (same); In re Marriage of Saylor, 232 Mont. 294 , 756 P.2d 1149, 1151 (1988) (holding that a trial court need not make specific findings if custody order is supported by substanti