Randy Don Sampson v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Randy Don Sampson,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
rial Court Case No. 3PA-23-00842CR
Court of Appeals No. A-14719
Order
Bail Appeal
Date of Order: August 14, 2025
T
Before: Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges
In April 2023, Randy Don Sampson was charged with multiple counts of
sexual abuse of a minor based on allegations that he sexually abused his stepdaughter
from the time she was nine years old to the time she was fifteen years old. At Sampson’s
initial appearance, the court set bail as follows: a $2,500 cash performance bond, a
$20,000 cash or corporate appearance bond, Pretrial Enforcement Division (PED)
supervision with GPS monitoring, and a third-party custodian requirement.
On May 5, 2023, a grand jury indicted Sampson on seven counts of first-
degree sexual abuse of a minor, six counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor,
and one count of attempted first-degree sexual abuse of a minor.1 After several bail
hearings, Sampson’s bail remains unchanged, and he filed a bail appeal following the
most recent hearing, held on April 28, 2025. After reviewing the record, we affirm.
Background facts and proceedings
The history of Sampson’s bail hearings is as follows: Following
Sampson’s indictment in May 2023, Sampson’s attorney filed a request for a bail review
hearing. In this application, the attorney sought to delete the third-party custodian
1 AS 11.41.434(a)(3)(A)-(B), AS 11.41.436(a)(5)(A)-(B), and AS 11.41.434(a)(3)
(A)-(B) & AS 11.31.100(a), respectively.

Sampson v. State, A-14719
August 14, 2025 – p. 2
requirement. In the alternative, the attorney proposed Darlena and Tim Fritzler as third-
party custodians.
Due to a change in attorney representation as a result of a conflict of
interest at the Public Defender Agency, this bail proposal was never directly addressed
and was ultimately vacated at a May 24, 2023 hearing. The prosecutor noted, however,
that the two proposed third-party custodians were potentially statutorily ineligible under
AS 12.30.021(c).
Nearly two years later, on January 23, 2025, Sampson’s attorney filed a
request for a new bail review hearing. In this application, the attorney requested that the
monetary bail be reduced to unsecured bonds and that the third-party custodian
requirement be deleted. The application indicated that Sampson had no assets and was
unable to pay the monetary bail.
At a February 3, 2025 hearing, Sampson’s attorney requested that the bail
review portion of the hearing associated with the January 23, 2025 bail application be
vacated. Sampson’s attorney informed the superior court that he and Sampson would
review the need to modify bail at a later date, if necessary.
Sampson subsequently requested a representation hearing and renewed his
January 23, 2025 bail request. The superior court set a combined representation hearing
and bail review hearing for April 17, 2025.
At the April 17, 2025 hearing, the court proceeded with the representation
hearing first because Sampson sought to represent himself. After conducting a colloquy
with Sampson, the superior court found that Sampson wished to represent himself and
that he was competent to do so.
During the bail review portion of the hearing, Sampson (now representing
himself) stated that his proposal was to eliminate the monetary bail conditions and
delete the third-party custodian requirement, but he did not request any changes to the
condition requiring GPS monitoring with exclusion zones. Sampson stated that he has
no assets available to him and asked for unsecured bail.

Sampson v. State, A-14719
August 14, 2025 – p. 3
The complaining witness, M.N., stated that she would feel unsafe if
Sampson were released; she alleged that Sampson had told her in the past that he has
hurt others who have wronged him. She also stated that she has witnessed Sampson
beat up and abuse her mother and brothers.
The State opposed Sampson’s bail proposal. The State asserted that the
monetary bail was already set lower than it should be. The State also argued that its case
was strong and was corroborated through some of Sampson’s own statements, evidence
found in his home, and notes that he wrote to M.N.
The superior court denied Sampson’s request to delete both the monetary
bail conditions and the third-party custodian requirement. The court acknowledged that
Sampson was willing to retain GPS monitoring, but noted that he had not proposed any
additional protective measures, such as house arrest. The court told Sampson, however,
that it would consider reducing or even eliminating the monetary bail requirements in
the future if Sampson could propose a strong third-party custodian.
On April 20, 2025, Sampson filed a subsequent application for a bail
review hearing. In this application, Sampson requested that the appearance bond be
reduced to an unsecured bond, and he proposed another third-party custodian (Yvonne
Koenig) in addition to his previously proposed third-party custodians (Darlena and Tim
Fritzler). Sampson did not seek to change the GPS monitoring required by his bail
conditions.
This bail review application was addressed at an April 28, 2025 hearing
but was vacated because none of Sampson’s proposed third-party custodians were
present at the hearing. (The prosecutor again expressed concerns about the willingness
or eligibility of the proposed third-party custodians. Although the prosecutor believed
that the Fritzlers were actually eligible to serve, the prosecutor indicated that they no
longer wished to do so. The prosecutor stated that Koenig was already serving as a
third-party custodian for her son, and was therefore statutorily ineligible to serve as a

Sampson v. State, A-14719
August 14, 2025 – p. 4
third-party custodian for Sampson.2) The court suggested that Sampson get his bail
proposal in order and file a request for a new hearing.
Why we affirm the superior court’s orders
On May 22, 2025, Sampson filed a bail appeal in this Court. While
Sampson’s pro se pleading is a bit unclear, we understand him to be raising two main
arguments.
First, Sampson argues that the superior court should have deleted the
third-party custodian requirement because the bail condition requiring GPS monitoring
with exclusion zones is a sufficient substitute for a third-party custodian in this case.3
We have previously recognized that “the key question when setting bail conditions is
whether the conditions as a whole are the least restrictive necessary to reasonably ensure
the defendant’s appearance and the protection of the alleged victim, other persons, and
the community.”4 Because the key question is whether the conditions as a whole are
the least restrictive necessary, we have cautioned courts against imposing multiple
2 AS 12.30.021(c).
3 We note that it is not clear that this claim is properly before us. Sampson’s request
to delete the third-party custodian requirement was last addressed at the April 17, 2025 bail
hearing. Any bail appeal from that hearing would have been due on or before
May 19, 2025. See Alaska R. App. P. 206(b), 207, 502(a). When Sampson filed his bail
appeal on May 22, 2025, he did not file a motion to accept a late bail appeal, and he
indicated in the docketing statement accompanying his bail appeal that the challenged
judgment was issued on April 28, 2025 bail hearing. However, we exercise our discretion
to consider Sampson’s claim, in light of the short delay and the fact that little happened at
the April 28 hearing when Sampson’s proposed third-party custodians did not appear.
4 Erfurth v. State, 2024 WL 4249819, at *6 (Alaska App. Sept. 19, 2024)
(unpublished bail order); see also AS 12.30.011(b) (requiring least restrictive bail
conditions that will reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance and the protection of the
public).

Sampson v. State, A-14719
August 14, 2025 – p. 5
conditions that serve the same or similar supervisory purposes, such as monitoring
conditions like a third-party custodian and GPS electronic monitoring.5
In setting Sampson’s initial bail conditions at his first appearance, the
court acknowledged this general principle and stated that it does not require both a third-
party custodian and GPS monitoring as a matter of course. The court was concerned,
however, about the length of time, degree, and extent of Sampson’s alleged abuse and
also by the reports of efforts by Sampson and his wife to manipulate M.N. and her
siblings.
Specifically, the prosecutor reported that Sampson and his wife (M.N.’s
mother) had pressured M.N. and her brothers to “keep secrets” and potentially take
responsibility for some of Sampson’s alleged conduct. Also, the State asserted that there
was evidence that Sampson either directly or indirectly attempted to pressure M.N. to
agree that Sampson could remain in the family home after the initial report of alleged
abuse. Based on this information, the court found that GPS monitoring on its own was
not adequate to protect the community.
The superior court considered Sampson’s request to delete the third-party
custodian requirement at the April 17, 2025 bail hearing. At that hearing, the superior
court explained that under Alaska law, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person
charged with a sexual felony poses a substantial risk of not appearing and a danger to
the alleged victim and the community.6 The superior court denied Sampson’s proposal,
finding that Sampson was charged with a sexual felony and had not rebutted this
presumption. The court noted that Sampson sought to delete the monetary bail
conditions and the third-party custodian requirement without an alternative proposal to
ensure that he did not pose a danger to the alleged victim or the community, like house
5 Erfurth, 2024 WL 4249819, at *5-6.
6 AS 12.30.011(d)(2).

Sampson v. State, A-14719
August 14, 2025 – p. 6
arrest. Based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that this was
not an abuse of discretion.7
We note that Sampson’s primary focus at the April 17 hearing was on the
reduction of the monetary bail, and he did not argue (as he does now) that the imposition
of a third-party custodian requirement on top of the GPS monitoring that he was seeking
to retain was duplicative. The court accepted that Sampson had no available assets, and
the court expressed its willingness to reduce, or even eliminate, the monetary bail if
Sampson proposed a strong third-party custodian.
Second, Sampson argues that the superior court failed to adequately
consider his bail review applications at multiple hearings. But as our recitation of the
hearings outlined above demonstrates, the record does not support this argument.
Sampson’s January 23, 2025 bail review application was thoroughly litigated at the
April 17, 2025 hearing. And Sampson’s April 20, 2025 bail review application was set
to be considered at the April 28, 2025 bail review hearing, but his proposed third-party
custodians were not present. The court told Sampson that he should determine the
availability of his proposed third-party custodians and request a new bail review hearing
once his proposal was in order. We therefore reject Sampson’s claim that the court did
not consider his bail proposals.
Sampson must seek relief with respect to discovery in the superior court
We address one additional issue. Sampson has also filed in this Court a
motion to compel discovery. It is not clear precisely what Sampson is requesting; he
lists multiple items of discovery together with their page numbers in the discovery
packet, suggesting he has access to at least some of these items already. It is also not
7 See Moe v. State, 570 P.3d 925, 935 (Alaska App. 2025) (“This Court reviews a trial
court’s order imposing particular bail conditions 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.’”) (quoting Pisano v. State, 2018 WL 11306173,
at *2 (Alaska App. May 24, 2018) (unpublished bail order)).

Sampson v. State, A-14719
August 14, 2025 – p. 7
clear to what extent Sampson has litigated this issue or received an adverse ruling in
the superior court. At the April 17 bail hearing, Sampson raised a concern that he was
unable to view a disc containing discovery and requested assistance with obtaining a
paper copy. Both the superior court and the prosecutor expressed a willingness to assist.
Sampson must seek relief with respect to any discovery issues in the first instance in
the superior court and may not raise them before this Court through this bail appeal.
Conclusion
We AFFIRM the superior court’s bail orders.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Judge Cagle
Trial Court Clerk
Distribution:
Mail:
Sampson, Randy Don
Email:
Wininger-Howard, Melissa J