Anchorage, AK
Criminal defense Lawyer at Anchorage, AK
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Appeals ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Remanded for bail hearing with instructions.
Defendant asked Court to review superior court's refusal to set conditions of bail pending appeal. State agreed to review and remand. Rather than simply issuing unpublished order, Court published opi ... nion explaining decision in case.
OUTCOME: Positive memorandum decision
Deborah Allen operated a non-profit animal rescue business called “Chateau Pampered Purr”. In October 2009, Anchorage police officers and animal control officers executed search warrants at two buildin ... gs owned by Allen: one located on Kitlisa Drive, and the other located on West Tudor Road. In both buildings, the officers found dozens of animals living in poor conditions. The officers seized 32 animals at the Kitlisa Drive address—23 cats, 8 dogs, and a bird—and moved them to the Anchorage animal control facility. The officers found another 57 animals at the West Tudor Road address—55 cats and 2 lizards. With Allen's consent, these animals were left at the Tudor Road property because the animal control facility did not have room for them, and the Municipality had no alternative place to house them. Following a two-week trial in the Anchorage district court, Allen was found guilty of 32 counts of cruelty to animals as defined in Section 08.55.010.A.3 of the Anchorage Municipal Code. One of these counts was a combined count that encompassed all the cats found at the Tudor Road property. Allen appealed these convictions. Allen first argued that her attorney, Ronald West, had a conflict of interest, or at least a potential conflict of interest. Allen conceded that the trial judge brought this matter to her attention, alerted her to the potential conflict of interest, warned her of the possible dangers she faced if she continued to employ Mr. West, and asked her what she wanted to do. Allen further conceded that, in response to the trial judge's questions, she insisted on maintaining her attorney-client relationship with Mr. West. However, on appeal, Allen (represented by a different attorney) contended that the judge's inquiry was not legally sufficient, and that therefore her ostensible waiver of the potential conflict of interest was invalid. Allen also argued that the trial judge improperly limited the presentation of Allen's defense. Finally, Allen argued that, at sentencing, the district court ordered her to pay an excessive amount of restitution to the Municipality for the cost of housing and feeding the animals that were seized from the Kitlisa Drive property and taken to the animal control facility. Allen conceded that she was required to reimburse the Municipality for the care of these animals, but Allen contended that her obligation should be offset by the expenses she incurred in continuing to maintain the animals that were left in Allen's care at the Tudor Road property. The Alaska Court of Appeals concluded that none of Allen's claims had merit, and affirmed her convictions.
OUTCOME: Positive memorandum decision
The decision in its entirety: "Around 3:30 in the morning in late September 2010, an Anchorage police officer observed an unconscious man sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle that was parked on ... a downtown street. The vehicle was running. The man's head was slumped back, and his eyes were closed. The officer stopped his car, walked up to the parked vehicle, and knocked on the window. It turned out that the driver of this vehicle was Christopher Dela Cruz Fernandez, and that he had been sleeping. It also turned out that Fernandez was intoxicated. After Fernandez was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence, he asked the district court to suppress the evidence against him, claiming that this evidence was the fruit of an unlawful investigative stop. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that the officer contacted Fernandez to check on his welfare. The district court further concluded that, given the circumstances ( i.e., an unconscious person sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle at 3:30 in the morning), the officer was justified in believing that Fernandez might be in need of assistance. We agree. The judgement of the district court is AFFIRMED."
OUTCOME: Positive memorandum decision
Defendant was charged with operating under the influence (OUI). He exercised his right to an independent chemical test, and two vials of blood were drawn. Defendant subsequently requested testing of th ... e blood sample. The lab rejected the first vial of blood because the box containing it was improperly taped shut, but the lab tested the second vial. Defendant moved to suppress his breath test result, claiming the improperly secured and labeled first box raised questions about the integrity of the blood sample. The trial court denied his request. The court ruled that evidence of the improperly secured box could be introduced, and that the jury could evaluate this evidence when determining the weight it should give the test results. But, the court concluded that the improper packaging did not cast such doubt on the blood sample as to require exclusion of the blood test result. Trial court's ruling was affirmed.
OUTCOME: Positive memorandum decision
Defendant was convicted of refusal to submit to a breath test in violation of the Anchorage Municipal Code. On appeal, he claimed that the district court erred when it found that police had probable ca ... use to stop him for a traffic offense. After motion Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
