Michael Hernandez v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Michael Hernandez, Court of Appeals No. A-15074
Appellant,
Order
v.
State of Alaska, Date of Order: September 29, 2026
Appellee.
Trial Court Case Nos. 3KN-25-00132CR, 3KN-25-00075CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Beach and Haines, Judges
Hernandez is charged with one count of first-degree vehicle theft, one
count of second-degree theft, two counts of first-degree failure to stop at the direction
of a peace officer, one count of third-degree assault, one count of driving under the
influence (DUI), one count of reckless driving, two counts of second-degree criminal
trespass, and one count of violating conditions of release. The affidavit in support of
the complaint alleged that on February 18, 2025 Hernandez was driving a stolen vehicle,
failed to stop for the police, drove recklessly to avoid apprehension by the police, and
then crashed the vehicle into a tree. A breath test revealed that Hernandez had a blood
alcohol content of .142 percent.
Hernandez was on conditions of release in Anchorage case (3AN-20-
07409CR) and on misdemeanor probation in another Kenai case (3KN-25-00075CR)
at the time of this underlying incident. In the Kenai case, Hernandez pleaded guilty to
two amended counts of third-degree theft, one count of violation of conditions of
release, two counts of second-degree criminal trespass, and one count of fourth-degree
theft on February 12, 2025. Among other charges, the Anchorage case included one

Hernandez v. State, A-15074
September 29, 2026 – p. 2
count of second-degree robbery and three counts of third-degree escape.1 Hernandez
had been granted 322 days of credit towards his sentence in the Anchorage case
(Hernandez was discharged from Set Free Alaska (Set Free) a little more than a month
before the charges in the current case).
The Alaska Constitution provides criminal defendants a constitutional
right to pretrial release on bail and prohibits imposition of “excessive” bail.2 Excessive
bail is that which goes beyond the amount actually “necessary to fulfill the purposes of
bail — i.e., to reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance and the safety of . . . the
community.”3 Consistent with the right to bail, Alaska law requires judicial officers to
impose the “least restrictive condition or conditions that will reasonably ensure the
person’s appearance and protect the victim, other persons, and the community.” 4
Absent legal error, we review a trial court’s bail decision for an abuse of discretion,
recognizing that “setting bail ‘is in large measure a discretionary function, and the trial
court is in the best position to make this determination.’”5 As a general matter, we will
find an abuse of discretion only when the trial court’s decision was “arbitrary,
capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from an improper motive.”6
1 This case was subsequently resolved by a plea agreement, with Hernandez pleading
guilty to one count of third-degree escape and two counts of fourth-degree assault.
2 Alaska Const. art. I, §§ 11, 12; see also Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 (Alaska 1971)
(discussing constitutional right to be released on bail).
3 Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
4 AS 12.30.011(b).
5 Moe v. State, 570 P.3d 925, 935 (Alaska App. 2025) (quoting Pisano v. State, No.
A-13089, 2018 WL 11306173, at *2 (Alaska App. May 24, 2018) (unpublished bail
order)).
6 Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.,
414 P.3d 646, 651 (Alaska 2018)).

Hernandez v. State, A-15074
September 29, 2026 – p. 3
At Hernandez’s first court appearance on February 19, 2025, the district
court set bail at a $50,000 cash performance bond and a $50,000 cash appearance bond.
The district court also required that Hernandez be in the custody of a court-approved
third-party custodian.
At his first bail review hearing in September 2025, Hernandez requested
that the superior court make a “drastic reduction” in his cash bail to a $10,000 unsecured
appearance bond and order a bed-to-bed transfer to Set Free for inpatient alcohol
treatment. After hearing argument on the request, the superior court noted that
Hernandez had recently completed lengthy inpatient treatment at Set Free and, while he
was living in a different sober living facility, he had relapsed and picked up the new
criminal charges. The court further reasoned that although Hernandez faced a charge of
DUI, Hernandez had a high number of priors, including felonies, that were not
explained by alcohol use. The superior court denied Hernandez’s bail proposal finding
that this proposal did not address the significant appearance and community safety risks
that Hernandez posed given his criminal history and the underlying allegations.
Hernandez did not appeal this denial.
Hernandez then filed a subsequent bail application on June 10, 2026,
which again requested a bed-to-bed transfer to inpatient treatment at Set Free and a
reduction in cash bail to a $10,000 unsecured appearance bond.
Hernandez’s second bail review hearing occurred on June 17, 2026. The
superior court noted that it had addressed the same bail request from Hernandez back
in September and had denied that request after finding it was not the least restrictive
means because it was inadequate to ensure Hernandez’s appearance at trial and to
protect the community given his criminal history, the seriousness of the charges, and
that these charges occurred just six weeks after 322 days of inpatient treatment at Set
Free. Hernandez’s attorney clarified that his new proposed admission at Set Free would
be a dual diagnosis program to address both his substance abuse and bipolar disorder.
The court noted that although it did not dispute that Hernandez needed treatment, it was

Hernandez v. State, A-15074
September 29, 2026 – p. 4
denying the request because granting Hernandez’s proposal for inpatient treatment at
this late stage in the case would “put the case off another six months, nine months, a
year,” interfering with providing a timely disposition. The superior court’s concerns
were well-founded given this case had been pending for almost sixteen months at the
time of the second bail hearing and needed to be set for trial.
After having reviewed the record, we conclude that, given the age of the
case, the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez’s latest bail
request.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Gist
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Email:
Myers, Haley, Public Defender
Raymond, Patrick Reid