 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Basargin v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9348, No. 5135,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of the inmate's petition for postconviction relief was affirmed because the inmate had not made a prima facie case of showing that attorney incompetence caused the inmate to miss the filing deadline, and the inmate's petition was time barred under Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(3)(A).
|
|||||
| Beaver v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-8970, No. 5136,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was affirmed because defendant received adequate assistance of counsel, and there was insufficient evidence to establish plain error when the trial court advised defendant of the charge against him and when the trial court informed defendant of the sex offender registration requirements.
|
|||||
| Larson v. Edwards, Supreme Court No. S-11710, No. 1266,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In review of correctional center's contact rules, issue was moot because inmate was transferred to another facility. Supreme court applied three-part test for public interest exception: (1) inmate was unlikely to return to center; (2) inmate was not in position to assert third parties' rights; (3) public interest could not be discerned from record.
|
|||||
| Lockuk v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9321, No. 5134,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw a no contest plea was affirmed because there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that defendant had not been manipulated, coerced, or inadequately represented by counsel when he entered the plea. Trial court judge's comments at sentencing were not plain error.
|
|||||
| Morrissette v. Kim, Supreme Court No. S-11467, No. 1267,
SUPREME COURT OF ALASKA, November 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In divorce, division of property was appropriate because couple's home, where parties resided through their marriage, was properly categorized and valued as marital property, and rescission was inapplicable. Superior court also properly recaptured gas station's value by assigning original value to husband, and wife was properly denied a credit.
|
|||||
| Tierney v. State, Court of Appeals No. A-9092, No. 5137,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ALASKA, November 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's application for postconviction relief was properly denied because the inmate had not presented a meritorious claim when he challenged the constitutionality of his convictions under Alaska Stat. § 11.71.040 because the Noy decision finding some possession statutes to be unconstitutional did not apply to § 11.71.040.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
