6 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Alaska v. The Estate of Harry Powellgreen1 sentence2025Although the word “disposition” is not defined in the criminal rules, it generally refers to proceedings that are not deemed strictly criminal, but which involve restrictions on liberty, such as 16 State v. Estate of Powell, 563 P.3d 50, 56 (Alaska 2025) (citing Cora G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edgargreen1 sentence2024But see United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a]lthough it might have been preferable for the [trial] court to have conducted a colloquy with [the defendant] regarding his waiver of appeal, such a dialogue is not a prerequisite for a valid waiver of the right to appeal”); Edgar, 348 F.3d at 871-72 (concluding that it is “always error for a [trial] court to fail to discuss an appellate waiver provision during a [plea] colloquy,” but not always reversible error, particularly if, for example, the written agreement provided adequate warnings regarding the | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Smithgreen1 sentence2024The court and Saclamana had the following exchange about his right to appeal: 20 See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (holding that the trial court “must inquire specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights”); Ready, 82 F.2d at 557-58 (holding that defendant’s appeal waiver was unenforceable after the court “did not mention the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving this right,” even where defense counsel assured the court that the defendant gave up “his right to appeal any sentence that might be rendered here pursuant to [the plea] agreement”); United S | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Teetergreen1 sentence2024The court and Saclamana had the following exchange about his right to appeal: 20 See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (holding that the trial court “must inquire specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights”); Ready, 82 F.2d at 557-58 (holding that defendant’s appeal waiver was unenforceable after the court “did not mention the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving this right,” even where defense counsel assured the court that the defendant gave up “his right to appeal any sentence that might be rendered here pursuant to [the plea] agreement”); United S | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wayne Lewis Wessells, (Three Cases)green1 sentence2024The court and Saclamana had the following exchange about his right to appeal: 20 See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (holding that the trial court “must inquire specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights”); Ready, 82 F.2d at 557-58 (holding that defendant’s appeal waiver was unenforceable after the court “did not mention the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving this right,” even where defense counsel assured the court that the defendant gave up “his right to appeal any sentence that might be rendered here pursuant to [the plea] agreement”); United S | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Bushertgreen1 sentence2024The court and Saclamana had the following exchange about his right to appeal: 20 See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (holding that the trial court “must inquire specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights”); Ready, 82 F.2d at 557-58 (holding that defendant’s appeal waiver was unenforceable after the court “did not mention the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving this right,” even where defense counsel assured the court that the defendant gave up “his right to appeal any sentence that might be rendered here pursuant to [the plea] agreement”); United S | 1 | 1 |
Day Bros. v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2024The court and Saclamana had the following exchange about his right to appeal: 20 See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (holding that the trial court “must inquire specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights”); Ready, 82 F.2d at 557-58 (holding that defendant’s appeal waiver was unenforceable after the court “did not mention the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving this right,” even where defense counsel assured the court that the defendant gave up “his right to appeal any sentence that might be rendered here pursuant to [the plea] agreement”); United S | 1 | 1 |
Wahl v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Royster’s statements at the arraignment indicating that he understood the charges and the rights he was giving up by his plea are not conclusive. “[A] defendant’s responses to judicial questioning during a change of plea hearing are notoriously unreliable.” Wahl v. State, 691 P.2d 1048, 1052 (Alaska App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Bratcher v. Stategreen1 sentence1984Bratcher v. State, 681 P.2d 358, 361 (Alaska App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Winkler v. Stategreen1 sentence1984See, e.g., United States v. Roberts, 570 F.2d 999 , 1007 n. 23 (D.C.App.1977). 5 *1053 The state argues that in Winkler v. State, 580 P.2d 1167 (Alaska 1978), our supreme court held that a defendant’s subjective belief in the existence of a sentencing agreement was insufficient to permit withdrawal of his plea. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Winfield L. Roberts, A/K/A Wingreen1 sentence1984See, e.g., United States v. Roberts, 570 F.2d 999 , 1007 n. 23 (D.C.App.1977). 5 *1053 The state argues that in Winkler v. State, 580 P.2d 1167 (Alaska 1978), our supreme court held that a defendant’s subjective belief in the existence of a sentencing agreement was insufficient to permit withdrawal of his plea. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Harry Lee Michelsengreen1 sentence2024But see United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-72 (8th Cir. 1998) (stating that “[a]lthough it might have been preferable for the [trial] court to have conducted a colloquy with [the defendant] regarding his waiver of appeal, such a dialogue is not a prerequisite for a valid waiver of the right to appeal”); Edgar, 348 F.3d at 871-72 (concluding that it is “always error for a [trial] court to fail to discuss an appellate waiver provision during a [plea] colloquy,” but not always reversible error, particularly if, for example, the written agreement provided adequate warnings regarding the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Henry Lo
green
1 sentence2024The court and Saclamana had the following exchange about his right to appeal: 20 See Teeter, 257 F.3d at 24 (holding that the trial court “must inquire specifically at the change-of-plea hearing into any waiver of appellate rights”); Ready, 82 F.2d at 557-58 (holding that defendant’s appeal waiver was unenforceable after the court “did not mention the right to appeal or explain the consequences of waiving this right,” even where defense counsel assured the court that the defendant gave up “his right to appeal any sentence that might be rendered here pursuant to [the plea] agreement”); United S | 1 | 2024–2024 |
LaBrake v. State
green
2 sentences2017The State noted that, under this Court’s decision in LaBrake v. State,4 when a trial court decides whether to summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief, the court need not accept as true facts that are “patently false.”5 In the State’s view, Alexie’s responses to the court’s questions at the change-of-plea hearing demonstrated the patent falsity of Alexie’s 4 152 P.3d 474 (Alaska App. 2007). 5 Id. at 481 . –4– 2560 current claims that he did not understand the plea agreement, and that he was coerced into entering a guilty plea. 2017The State noted that, under this Court’s decision in LaBrake v. State,4 when a trial court decides whether to summarily dismiss an application for post-conviction relief, the court need not accept as true facts that are “patently false.”5 In the State’s view, Alexie’s responses to the court’s questions at the change-of-plea hearing demonstrated the patent falsity of Alexie’s 4 152 P.3d 474 (Alaska App. 2007). 5 Id. at 481 . –4– 2560 current claims that he did not understand the plea agreement, and that he was coerced into entering a guilty plea. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Morris v. State
green
1 sentence1997A change-of-plea hearing was calendared, but the hearing was continued when the parties could not agree on the particulars of Morris’s prior convictions. 734 P.2d at 1013 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1984In Williams v. State, 655 P.2d 779 (Alaska App.1982), we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams relief, since allowing Williams to withdraw his plea would have subjected the prosecution to substantial prejudice. 2 In the present case, Wahl’s first request to withdraw his guilty plea was made to *1052 Hanson only ten days after the change of plea hearing, the first time Hanson met with Wahl after Wahl changed his plea. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.