Anthony George Jenkins-Alexie v State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Anthony George Jenkins-Alexie, )
) Court of Appeals No. A-12988
Appellant, )
v. ) Order
) Bail Appeal
State of Alaska, )
)
Appellee. ) Date of Order: 11/13/2017
)
Trial Court Case # 4FA-16-02289CR
Before: Mannheimer, Chief Judge, Allard, and Wollenberg, Judges.
Anthony George Jenkins-Alexie is charged with a series of crimes,
including first-degree murder. These charges stem from an incident in which Jenkins-
Alexie is alleged to have shot a Fairbanks police officer, stomped on his head, and stolen
his police vehicle. The police officer later died from surgical complications after doctors
attempted to repair his wounded eye.
Following his arrest, Jenkins-Alexie was held on a “no bail” order pursuant
to AS 12.30.011(d)(2)(A). This statute creates a rebuttable presumption that, for persons
charged with certain serious crimes, “no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person or the safety of the victim, other persons,
or the community”.
Eleven months after his arrest, Jenkins-Alexie requested a bail hearing and
proposed that he be released on a $100,000 performance bond. Jenkins-Alexie also
asked the court to consider ordering an electronic monitoring program and mental health
treatment in conjunction with the performance bond, although he provided no specifics
with regard to these proposals.
The superior court denied the proposed release plan, concluding that
Jenkins-Alexie had failed to rebut the statutory presumption that no set of bail conditions

Jenkins-Alexie v. State—p.2
File No. A-12988—November 13, 2017
would assure his appearance in court and the safety of the community. The court’s
previous “no bail” order therefore remained in effect.
Jenkins-Alexie now appeals the superior court’s ruling, asserting that the
court erred when it concluded that his bail proposal did not overcome the statutory
presumption.
Although Jenkins-Alexie notes that the Alaska Constitution provides that
“the accused is ... entitled to be released on bail, except for capital offenses when the
proof is evidence or the presumption great,” Jenkins-Alexie does not directly challenge
the constitutionality of the “no bail” order in his case, nor does he brief any of the issues
that would be at stake in such a challenge. Instead, Jenkins-Alexie challenges only the
court’s rejection of his specific bail proposal. He asserts that his proposal adequately
addressed all of the public safety concerns that Jenkins-Alexie might pose on pre-trial
release.
Thus, the only question before us in this appeal is whether the superior
court abused its discretion when it rejected Jenkins-Alexie’s proposal as inadequate to
rebut the “no bail” presumption created by the bail statute.
We have reviewed the parties’ briefing, and we have listened to the bail
hearing. Based on our review, we conclude that the superior court did not abuse its
discretion when it rejected Alexie’s proposal.
As the State points out, Jenkins-Alexie provided the superior court with
very few details about his proposed release plan. For example, he did not inform the
court where he would live, nor did he provide the details of that living arrangement.
Similarly, although Jenkins-Alexie suggested that the court could order him to do mental
health and/or substance abuse treatment, he failed to provide any factual basis from
which the court could evaluate that proposal or determine what it would entail. The

Jenkins-Alexie v. State—p.3
File No. A-12988—November 13, 2017
same was true with regard to Jenkins-Alexie’s proposal for electronic monitoring.
In addition, even though the issue of Jenkins-Alexie’s indigency was
directly raised at the hearing, Jenkins-Alexie never explained where the money for a
$100,000 cash performance bond would come from, nor did he explain what type of
obligations — legal, moral, or otherwise — would bind him to repay the $100,000 if it
was forfeited.
Given this record, the nature of the charges, and the court’s findings
regarding the risks to public safety that Jenkins-Alexie posed, we find no abuse of
discretion in the court’s rejection of the proposed bail release conditions.
Accordingly, the superior court’s order is AFFIRMED.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
/s/ Marilyn May
Marilyn May
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Judge McConahy
Trial Court Clerk
Central Staff
Distribution:
Jennifer Hite
Assistant Public Defender
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage AK 99501
Patricia Haines
Office of Criminal Appeals
1031 W. 4th Ave, Suite 200
Anchorage AK 99501