Walker Akeya Craft v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Walker Akeya Craft,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-14185
Order
Motion for Release Prior to Judgment
Date of Order: 9/22/2023
Trial Court Case No. 2NO-21-00449CR
Before: 	Wollenberg, Harbison, and Terrell, Judges
In 2021, Walker Akeya Craft was charged by complaint with a single
count of first-degree assault for strangling and hitting his girlfriend, K.A. In May 2023,
Craft was indicted on four counts related to this conduct: (1) first-degree assault (for
recklessly causing K.A. serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument);
(2) second-degree assault (for intentionally causing K.A. physical injury by means of a
dangerous instrument), (3) third-degree assault (for placing K.A. in fear of imminent
serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument), and (4) second-degree
sexual assault (for engaging in non-consensual sexual contact with K.A. — specifically,
causing bruising on her genitals).1
As described in the complaint, at around 3:00 a.m., after their friends had
left following a long evening of drinking, Craft and K.A. were alone at their home. Craft
became angry when K.A. was uninterested in sex, and began hitting her on her pelvic
area, buttocks, and face. Craft then choked K.A. so severely that she defecated and
urinated. Craft slapped K.A., causing damage to her left ear drum. K.A. later told police
AS 	11.41.200(a)(1), 	AS 	11.41.210(a)(1), 	AS 	11.41.220(a)(1)(A), 	and 	former
AS 11.41.420(a)(1) (2021), respectively.
1

Craft v. State – A-14185
File No. A-14185 – p. 2
that this was not the first time Craft had assaulted her, and that each time she tries to
leave him he threatens suicide.
At Craft’s first felony appearance on September 15, 2021, the court
required, as a condition of release, that Craft post a $30,000 cash performance bond.
At Craft’s first bail hearing on September 29, 2021, Craft’s attorney
asserted that despite diligent efforts, Craft could not post $30,000 for the cash
performance bond, and requested that the court lower the amount to $5,000. The court
responded that, in the absence of detailed information regarding Craft’s financial assets,
the conclusory assertion by counsel that Craft could not afford to pay the bail was
insufficient to overcome her conclusion that the performance bond was justified by the
seriousness of the charge and the strength of the complaint. Accordingly, the court left
the requirement for a $30,000 cash performance bond in place.
A second bail hearing was held on April 11, 2023. At this hearing, Craft
proposed that he be released to the custody of two third-party custodians (his mother,
Linda Akeya, and his cousin, Derek Akeya) and that the court replace the $30,000 cash
performance bond with an unsecured appearance bond (or release on Craft’s own
recognizance). Craft’s attorney told the court that Craft had been doing construction
jobs for several years and that he had experience commercial fishing. But aside from
this employment information, the defense attorney did not provide any additional
information about Craft’s finances, and simply reiterated that Craft could not post
$30,000.
The prosecutor stated that he had spoken with both proposed third-party
custodians prior to the hearing and, based on those conversations and their answers to
his questions at the bail hearing, they both appeared to be responsible people, fully
capable of carrying out their duties as third-party custodians.
The court approved Linda and Derek Akeya as third-party custodians. But
the court declined to replace the cash performance bond with an unsecured appearance

Craft v. State – A-14185
File No. A-14185 – p. 3
bond and instead reduced the performance bond, requiring a posting of $15,000 rather
than $30,000.
Craft appeals, challenging the court’s imposition of the $15,000 cash
performance bond. Craft argues that the court failed to sufficiently explain why this
cash bail is necessary, given the other conditions of release set by the court.
In setting bail, Alaska law requires the trial court 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.”2 In its ruling, the trial court
expressly recognized that it was required to impose the “least restrictive” condition or
conditions that would reasonably ensure the safety of K.A. and the community. But,
after engaging in a thorough review of the record, the court concluded that some
monetary bail remained necessary, even taking into account the third-party custodians
and other bail conditions it had imposed.3
We have explained that, when determining an appropriate amount of
monetary bail, “one possible starting place for the court’s analysis is [the defendant]’s
own proposed monetary bail, which presumably represents an amount [they] believe[]
[they] can afford.”4 In addition, we have noted that a court may set the monetary
component of bail in an amount that imposes a financial strain on the defendant if the
court finds that this is needed to motivate the defendant to comply with bail conditions
2 	AS 12.30.011(b).
3 	See AS 12.30.011(c) (setting out factors a court shall consider in determining the
conditions of release).
4 	Pisano v. State, 2019 WL 12043666, at *3 (Alaska App. Jan. 16, 2019) (unpublished
bail order).

Craft v. State – A-14185
File No. A-14185 – p. 4
and the third-party custodians to comply with their duties.5 Here, the trial court reduced
the bail from $30,000 to $15,000, which is much closer to the $5,000 Craft had offered
to post at his first bail review hearing. In imposing the bail, the court focused on the
severity of this incident, noting that it arose during an ongoing violent domestic
relationship that included Craft’s threats of suicide. The court also commented on the
strength of the State’s case, noting that law enforcement officers had seen K.A.’s
injuries as well as the urine and feces on the bedsheets, which corroborated K.A.’s
statement about the incident.
Craft asserts on appeal that his inability to pay a high cash amount was
“evidenced by his inability to post $30,000 after 18 months in custody, and his and his
family members’ substantial dependence on subsistence activities.” But the record also
shows 	that 	Craft 	had 	previously 	been 	employed 	in 	both 	the 	construction 	and
commercial fishing industries. And despite the trial court’s comments at the first bail
review hearing that it did not have detailed information about the assets available to
Craft to post bail, Craft did not provide any additional information about his finances
to the court at the second bail review hearing.
We have reviewed the record in this case, and we conclude that, under
these circumstances, the trial court sufficiently explained its decision and did not abuse
its discretion in requiring a $15,000 cash performance bond.
We accordingly AFFIRM the court’s decision.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
See id. at *2; West v. State, 2014 WL 12973941, at *1 (Alaska App. Aug. 18, 2014)
(unpublished bail order).
5

Craft v. State – A-14185
File No. A-14185 – p. 5
Judge WOLLENBERG, dissenting.
I would remand for a further explanation of the need for a $15,000 cash
bail. In maintaining a significant cash performance bond, the court expressed substantial
concern for K.A.’s safety — an understandable concern given the severity of the
charges and the risk of an ongoing cycle of violence involving K.A. But there are other
conditions in place to protect K.A.’s safety — most notably, the two third-party
custodians whom the prosecutor acknowledged were unusually strong and the trial court
found to be “excellent.”
In addition, even though K.A. requested contact with Craft, the court has
maintained the no-contact order — a decision Craft does not challenge. Craft intends to
live with his third-party custodians in a different village than K.A. And the third-party
custodians will help ensure Craft’s compliance with his bail conditions — e.g., that he
refrain from contacting K.A. and refrain from consuming alcohol, which is alleged to
have played a significant role in the charged offenses.
The court was concerned about Craft’s risk to K.A., but never indicated
that Craft posed a risk to the public at large. Craft himself is thirty-one years old and
has no prior convictions. He previously informed the court that he could afford no more
than $5,000 bail, and he has remained in custody despite the approval of the third-party
custodians. The court did not offer any particular reason for merely dividing the existing
$30,000 bail in half — i.e., why $15,000 was the least restrictive monetary amount
necessary to reasonably ensure Craft’s performance, given the other non-monetary
conditions in place.1 The court did not mention Craft’s assets at the April bail hearing
or state that it was imposing $15,000 bail as a financial strain on Craft in order to
See AS 12.30.011(b).	1

________________________________
Meredith Montgomery
Craft v. State – A-14185
File No. A-14185 – p. 6
motivate him to comply with his bail conditions.2 Particularly in a case where the
defendant 	has 	no 	prior 	convictions 	and 	“excellent” 	third-party 	custodians, 	the
imposition of money bail above the defendant’s ability to pay must be closely
scrutinized.3
I 	would 	remand 	for 	further 	findings 	as 	to 	why 	the 	non-monetary
conditions in place are insufficient to protect K.A.’s safety and/or reconsideration of
the amount of monetary bail. I therefore dissent.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
cc: 	Magistrate Judge Smith
Trial Court Clerk – Nome
Distribution:
Email:
Yff, Eric David, Public Defender
Earthman, John A.
2 	See AS 12.30.011(c) (listing the factors a court shall consider in determining the
conditions of release, including the “assets available to the person to meet monetary
conditions of release”).
3 	See Sergie v. State, 2021 WL 3277199, at *3 (Alaska App. July 30, 2021)
(unpublished bail order) (“[A] trial court that sets a monetary bail above the defendant’s
ability to pay must provide a ‘particularized statement’ that addresses how the monetary
amount was calculated and that directly explains ‘why no less restrictive conditions will
suffice.’” (citing Francis v. State, 2021 WL 1346285, at *2 n.10 (Alaska App. Jan. 15,
2021) (unpublished bail order), which in turn quotes Brangan v. Commonwealth, 80 N.E.3d
949, 964-66 (Mass. 2017))).