Dennis Paul Huntington v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Dennis P. Huntington,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-14247
Order
Appellate Rule 207
Date of Order: 12/1/2023
Trial Court Case No. 4FA-21-02619CR
Before: 	Allard, Chief Judge, and Harbison and Terrell, Judges.
Dennis P. Huntington appeals an order of the superior court denying his
application for a bail review hearing. The superior court denied the application, citing
AS 12.30.006(d)(1) and (d)(3), which prohibit a person from receiving a subsequent
bail review hearing except upon a written statement alleging new information and
provide that “a person may receive only one bail review hearing solely for inability to
pay.”
We have held that, “because the underlying right of pretrial release is
guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution . . . 	courts should broadly construe what
qualifies as ‘new information’ for purposes of obtaining a subsequent bail review
hearing under AS 12.30.006(d)(1).”1 And we have explained that the restrictions on
successive bail review hearings are “intended to prevent defendants from engaging in
‘serial bail hearings’ where there is no new information for the trial court to consider.”2
1 	Karr v. State, 459 P.3d 1183, 1185 (Alaska App. 2020); see also Alaska Const. art.
I, § 11.
2 	West v. State, 2014 WL 12969638, at *2 (Sept. 2, 2014) (unpublished bail order)
(citing Minutes of House Judiciary Committee, House Bill 54, statement of Assistant
Attorney General Anne Carpeneti, 1:29:23 p.m. (Mar. 30, 2005)).

Huntington v. State – p. 2
File No. A-14247 – 12/01/2023
Huntington had previously posted bail before being reincarcerated after
allegedly violating the conditions of his release. In the application for a bail review
hearing that the superior court denied, Huntington’s attorney provided new details
about Huntington’s finances, including how he had previously found the money to pay
his bail. This was new information about “assets available to the person to meet [the]
monetary conditions of release” — one of the statutory factors for courts to consider in
setting bail.3 And since Huntington’s reincarceration, the superior court has conducted
bail review hearings concerning proposals for a third-party custodian, a bed-to-bed
transfer for inpatient substance abuse treatment, and home confinement while attending
outpatient substance abuse treatment. None of these hearings was solely for inability to
pay.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the order of the superior court denying
Huntington’s application for a bail review hearing, and we REMAND for the superior
court to hold a bail review hearing.
Huntington also appeals the superior court’s decision at his last bail
review hearing, declining to reduce his monetary bail while otherwise granting his
request for home confinement on electronic monitoring to attend outpatient substance
abuse treatment. When a trial court conducts a bail review hearing to consider new
information, it is required to evaluate the entirety of the bail proposal in order to
determine the “least restrictive condition or conditions that will reasonably ensure the
person’s appearance and protect the victim, other persons, and the community.” 4
Because the superior court must now conduct a new bail review hearing with new
3 	AS 12.30.011(c)(8).
4 	AS 12.30.011(b); see also Wright v. State, 2023 WL 3267784, at *3 (Alaska App.
Apr. 24, 2023) (unpublished bail order) (requiring courts “to evaluate the entirety of the
bail proposal” when conducting bail review hearings).

information, it will necessarily consider whether the reduction in the monetary bail is
appropriate at that hearing. We express no opinion on the merits of Huntington’s
argument.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
________________________________
Huntington v. State – p. 3
File No. A-14247 – 12/01/2023
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
Meredith Montgomery
cc: 	Judge Haines
Trial Court Clerk – Fairbanks
Distribution:
Email:
Yff, Eric David, Public Defender
Lucas, Shaun P