Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
Law Offices of James B. Gottstein.
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 333-5869

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Hertz v. State (01/09/2004) ap-1911

Hertz v. State (01/09/2004) ap-1911

                             NOTICE
     The text of this opinion can be corrected before the
     opinion is published in the Pacific Reporter.  Readers
     are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal
     errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate
     Courts:

             303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501
                      Fax:  (907) 264-0878
       E-mail:  corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us


         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA


SIDNEY R. HERTZ,              )                     Court of
Appeals No. A-8422
                              )              Trial Court Nos. 3AN-
02-4752 CI
                               Appellant,    )
3AN-S83-6873 CR
                              )
                 v.           )
                              )                                O
P  I  N  I  O  N
STATE OF ALASKA,              )
                              )
                               Appellee.     )
[No. 1911 - January 9, 2004]
                              )

          Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judi
          cial District, Anchorage, Peter A. Michalski,
          Judge.

          Appearances:  Sidney R. Hertz, pro se,
          Juneau, for Appellant,  Marilyn J. Kamm,
          Assistant Attorney General, Department of
          Law, Criminal Division, and Gregg D. Renkes,
          Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.

          Before: Coats, Chief Judge, Stewart, Judge,
          and Joannides, Superior Court Judge.*
          [Mannheimer, Judge, not participating.]

          COATS, Chief Judge

          Sidney R. Hertz filed an application for post-

conviction relief in which he claimed that the Alaska Department

of Corrections failed to provide him with the proper equipment to

draft pleadings and with the proper medical and dental care.

Hertz also claimed that the Department of Corrections instituted

          administrative disciplinary proceedings against him in

retaliation for filing his application.  Superior Court Judge

Peter A. Michalski denied Hertzs application.  Hertz appeals

Judge Michalskis rulings to this court.  We conclude we do not

have jurisdiction to decide Hertzs appeal.



          Factual and procedural background

          In 1984, Hertz was convicted of second-degree murder

and sentenced to a 40-year term.1  On direct appeal, Hertz

challenged his conviction and sentence, and we affirmed the

superior court.2  Hertz then filed several applications for

post-conviction relief.  We affirmed the superior courts

dismissal of these applications.3

          In February 2002, Hertz filed his most recent

application for post-conviction relief.  In this application,

Hertz makes several claims and argues that he is entitled to

relief under AS 12.72.020(c).  First, Hertz claims that the

Alaska Department of Corrections has failed to provide him with a

properly functioning electronic legal typewriter as well as low-

cost typing paper to use with the typewriter.  Associated with

this claim is Hertzs allegation that the law library where the

typewriter is located presents a safety hazard because of its

lack of readily accessible emergency exits.

          Second, Hertz claims that the Department of Corrections

has provided him with substandard medical and dental care which

has allegedly caused him a variety of physical problems ranging

from loss of teeth to high blood pressure, strokes, and prostate

cancer.  Hertz also alleges that due to a change in Department of

Corrections policy, the department is now requiring him to pay

for some of his medical and dental treatment.

          Third, Hertz claims that as a result of complaining

about the prison law library to the Department of Corrections and

as a result of filing his most recent application for post-

conviction relief, the Department of Corrections retaliated

against him by instituting a disciplinary action against him.

          The Department of Corrections disciplinary committee concluded

that Hertz took, among other things, extra towels and condiments

to his room in violation of 22 AAC 05.400(d)(7).  The committee

sentenced Hertz to the standard punishment of 10 days of

segregation.  Hertz appealed to the superintendent, who upheld

the committees findings.  (Hertz did not allege in any of his

filings before the Department of Corrections that the

disciplinary proceeding was in response to his filing an

application for post-conviction relief.)  Hertz also alleged that

the Department of Corrections retaliated against him by failing

to promptly provide him a return mail receipt for certain

mailings.

          On June 12, 2002, Hertz filed a motion to amend his

application.  In his amended application, Hertz did not raise any

new issues.

          Hertz also filed a request for court-appointed counsel

and filed a motion requesting that Judge Michalski recuse himself

because Judge Michalski had worked for the Office of Special

Prosecutions and Appeals and apparently was involved in Hertzs

prosecution eighteen years earlier.

          On June 17, 2002, the State filed a motion to dismiss

Hertzs application on the grounds that it failed to state a claim

for which the superior court could grant relief and because the

superior court lacked appellate jurisdiction to consider the

claims raised in the application.

          Judge Michalski declined to recuse himself because the

matter before the court was not related to Hertzs conviction and

sentence, but rather involved a new claim that the Department of

Corrections is violating his right to prepare legal pleadings and

to medical and dental necessities.  Judge Michalski denied Hertz

court-appointed counsel.  Judge Michalski also denied Hertzs

motion to amend his application, concluding that the attempted

amendment challenged a post-sentencing disciplinary decision of

the Department of Corrections and as such was not the appropriate

subject matter for an application for post-conviction relief.

Judge Michalski granted the States motion to dismiss Hertzs

application because it did not involve subject matter that was

cognizable under a post-conviction relief proceeding and because

there were no fundamental constitutional rights at issue.

          Hertz appeals Judge Michalskis rulings.



          This court does not have jurisdiction over Hertzs

appeal

          Hertz argues that he is entitled to bring an action for

post-conviction relief under AS 12.72.020(c)(1) because his

claims are based on a final administrative decision of the

Department of Corrections.

          Alaska Statute 12.72.010 provides for post-conviction

relief and sets out the following limitations on applications for

post-conviction relief.

               (c) Notwithstanding (a)(6) of this
          section, [prohibiting filing an application
          for post-conviction relief if the applicant
          has filed a previous application] a court may
          hear a claim based on a final administrative
          decision of the Board of Parole or the
          Department of Corrections if

               (1) the claim was not and could not have
          been challenged in a previous application for
          post-conviction relief filed under this
          chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal
          Procedure; and

               (2) a previous application for
          post-conviction relief relating to the
          administrative decision has not been filed
          under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules
          of Criminal Procedure.

Hertz argues that AS 12.72.020(c) gives this court jurisdiction

to decide his claim.

          The court of appeals is a statutory court with limited

jurisdiction.4  Our jurisdiction is set in AS 22.07.020.  In

general, that statute gives us jurisdiction over criminal cases.

In particular, the statute provides that we have jurisdiction in

matters involving post-conviction relief.5

          Alaska Statute 12.72.010 is the statute that  provides

for post-conviction relief.  That statute provides for post-

conviction relief in matters affecting a defendants conviction

and sentence.  The statute does not discuss conditions of

incarceration or prison disciplinary matters as within the scope

of a post-conviction relief action.  It therefore does not appear

to us that the post-conviction relief statute is intended to

apply to the matters that Hertz raises.

          Furthermore, since this courts inception in 1980,

appeals of administrative decisions of the Department of

Corrections involving prison conditions and prison disciplinary

matters have gone to the Supreme Court of Alaska.  In Rust v.

State,6 the supreme court concluded that a prisoner had a right

to institute an independent civil action seeking treatment for

his dyslexic condition.7  The court declined to determine whether

a prisoner could also raise such claims in an application for

post-conviction relief.8  But subsequent cases have made clear

that administrative appeals that deal with a defendants

conditions of imprisonment or prison disciplinary matters must go

to the supreme court, not this court.

          In Department of Corrections v. Kraus,9  two prisoners

were sanctioned by a prison disciplinary committee.  After

exhausting their remedies within the prison system, they filed an

administrative appeal in the superior court.  The State argued

that the action of the Department of Corrections was not

appealable and that the courts lacked jurisdiction to decide the

appeal.  The supreme court granted the States petition for review

on this issue. The supreme court held that the state courts had

jurisdiction to review the Department of Correctionss action to

determine whether the defendants had received fundamental due

process.10   The supreme court specifically rejected the States

suggestion that any review of the Department of Correctionss

decision should be conducted as a post-conviction relief

action.11  The court stated that the proper procedural vehicle

was an appeal of the administrative decision rather than an

          application for post-conviction relief.

          In Higgins v. Briggs12 we followed Kraus stating:

          Under AS 22.05.010(a), a party has only one
          appeal as a matter of right from an action or
          proceeding commenced  in either the district
          court or the superior court.  And AS
          22.05.010(c) declares that decision[s] of the
          superior court on an appeal from an
          administrative agency may be appealed to the
          supreme court as a matter of right.  From
          these two statutory provisions, it follows
          that if a party wishes to exercise the right
          of appeal from the superior courts decision
          of an administrative appeal, the party must
          take that appeal to the supreme court, not to
          this court.  This is, in fact, where such
          appeals have gone since this court was
          established in 1980.[13]

          We therefore conclude that we do not have jurisdiction

over Hertzs appeal.  Hertz is appealing the actions of the

Department of Corrections in an administrative appeal.  The

matters that he raises involve his conditions of confinement and

prison disciplinary matters.  The supreme court and this court

have previously determined that the supreme court has

jurisdiction over these matters.  The legislature does not appear

to have intended to modify this courts jurisdiction by passing AS

12.72.020(c).  We have examined the legislative history, and

there is no indication that this was the legislatures intent.

Furthermore, AS 12.72.010, which sets out the scope of post-

conviction relief, does not appear to apply to administrative

appeals from Department of Correctionss decisions concerning

conditions of incarceration or prison disciplinary matters.

Alaska Statute 12.72.020(c) appears to apply to claims that more

directly affect a prisoners conviction and sentence, such as

whether the Department of Corrections correctly interpreted the

length of a prisoners sentence or properly computed the amount of

good time to which the prisoner was entitled.  These matters

would fall under the scope of an application for post-conviction

relief and this court would have jurisdiction over these matters.

But this court does not have jurisdiction over the issues that

          Hertz is raising.  We accordingly DISMISS Hertzs appeal on the

ground that we do not have jurisdiction to decide it.

_______________________________
      *     Sitting  by assignment made pursuant to  Article  IV,
Section 16 of the Alaska Constitution.

      1    The procedural history can be found in Hertz v. State,
Alaska  App. Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 4586  (June  19,
2002), 2002 WL 1333029.

      2     Hertz  v.  State, Alaska App. Memorandum Opinion  and
Judgment No. 1225 (Sept. 10, 1986).

      3     See,  e.g.,  Hertz v. State, Alaska  App.  Memorandum
Opinion  and Judgment No. 4713 (June 4, 2003), 2003 WL  21282168;
Hertz  v. State, Alaska App. Memorandum Opinion and Judgment  No.
4664 (Feb. 12, 2003), 2003 WL 294408; Hertz v. State, Alaska App.
Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 4506 (Nov. 28, 2001), 2001 WL
1518771;  Hertz  v.  State, Alaska App.  Memorandum  Opinion  and
Judgment  No.  3880  (Sept. 2, 1998), 1998 WL  557611;  Hertz  v.
State, Alaska App. Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 3069 (Jan.
11,  1995);  Hertz v. State, Alaska App. Memorandum  Opinion  and
Judgment  No. 2477 (July 29, 1992); Hertz v. State,  Alaska  App.
Memorandum Opinion and Judgment No. 2358 (Feb. 19, 1992).

     4    AS 22.07.010.

     5    AS 22.07.020(a)(2).

     6    584 P.2d 38 (Alaska 1978).

     7    Id. at 39.

     8    Id. at 39 n.3.

     9    759 P.2d 539 (Alaska 1988).

     10    Id. at 541.

     11    Id. at 540.

     12    876 P.2d 539 (Alaska App. 1994).

     13 Id. at 540.