Ladarius Tywon Corbett v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Ladarius Tywon Corbett,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-14735
Order
Date of Order: 9/12/2025
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-24-00696CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Terrell, Judges.
Ladarius Tywon Corbett has been indicted for attempted murder and
various degrees of felony assault for allegedly stabbing a neighbor in the face and neck
with a knife. Corbett’s bail release conditions include a third-party custodian
requirement and a $10,000 performance bond.
At his most recent bail hearing, Corbett requested that the third-party
custodian requirement be eliminated in favor of electronic monitoring and residence at
the Anchorage Department of Veterans Affairs Domiciliary Treatment Program.
Corbett also requested that the monetary bail be reduced to $1,000. The superior court
denied the request. Corbett now appeals.
For the reasons explained in this order, we conclude that the superior court
acted within its discretion when it denied Corbett’s requests.
Factual background and prior proceedings
Corbett was originally charged with first-, third-, and fourth-degree
assault for allegedly stabbing his neighbor in the face and neck. Bail was originally set
at $1,000 plus electronic monitoring and house arrest.
Corbett was subsequently indicted for attempted murder, first-degree
assault, second-degree assault, and third-degree assault based on the severity of the

Corbett v. State, A-14735
September 12, 2025 - Page 2
victim’s injuries. According to the representations at the bail hearings, Corbett’s attack
on the victim was random and unprovoked and almost led to the victim’s death.
Concerns have been raised that Corbett suffers from mental health issues.
At the time of the attack, Corbett was on probation for a misdemeanor
assault conviction. The misdemeanor assault was against Corbett’s wife and had
originally been charged as a felony. Corbett has no other criminal history.
Following Corbett’s indictment for attempted murder, the State requested
that a third-party custodian requirement be added to the bail release conditions. The
State also requested that the monetary bail be increased to $50,000 cash performance
and $25,000 cash appearance. The State argued that this increase in bail was necessary
because of the severity of the victim’s injuries and the random, unprovoked nature of
the attack.
The superior court granted this request in part, adding the third-party
custodian requirement and increasing the bail to $10,000 cash performance. The
superior court found that it had “significant concerns” for public safety based on the
information it had received.
At a subsequent bail hearing, Corbett requested that the third-party
custodian requirement be eliminated and replaced with private electronic monitoring
and that the monetary bail be reduced to $1,000. A different superior court judge denied
this request. The judge acknowledged that electronic monitoring is regularly accepted
and can, at times, provide better protection than a third-party custodian. But the judge
concluded that a third-party custodian was “absolutely essential” in this particular case
given the nature of the attack and the strength of the State’s case. The judge declined to
reduce the monetary bail, noting that, in his opinion, the $10,000 bail was “low” given
the violent and unprovoked nature of the attack.

Corbett v. State, A-14735
September 12, 2025 - Page 3
A year later, Corbett made a new bail request. This time, Corbett requested
that the third-party custodian be eliminated and replaced with electronic monitoring and
residence at Anchorage Department of Veterans Affairs Domiciliary Treatment
Program (the Dom). Corbett again requested that the bail be reduced to a $1,000 cash
performance bond based on his inability to pay.
In support of these requests, Corbett presented testimony from Michael
VanVleet, the Dom’s admissions coordinator. VanVleet described the Dom’s
residential program, which includes mental health counseling and substance abuse
programming. VanVleet also described the Dom’s security measures, which include a
fence, closed circuit cameras in the common areas and outside of the building, and 24-
hour armed Veterans Affairs police. VanVleet testified, however, that the program is
voluntary and neither the staff nor the VA police would physically restrain a veteran
who is trying to leave, although the staff or VA police would try to talk the person out
of leaving and would contact the appropriate authorities if the person was required by
court order to reside at the Dom. On cross-examination, VanVleet acknowledged that
it is possible for someone to leave without anyone noticing “for a short amount of time.”
The same superior court judge who presided over the superior court
arraignment rejected this proposal. The court noted its familiarity with the case, stating
that it had reviewed the charging document, the briefing of the parties, as well as
numerous pretrial motions by the parties and the officer’s body-worn camera footage.
The court found that “the nature and circumstances of this offense show that it was
random, unprovoked, extremely serious, and [the victim] is incredibly lucky to be
alive.” The court also found that the State’s case was “strong” and that the presumption

Corbett v. State, A-14735
September 12, 2025 - Page 4
that Corbett presented a danger to the community had not been rebutted.1 The court
concluded that the case required a third-party custodian that would be personally
responsible for observing Corbett’s whereabouts and that would be required to report
to authorities if he left their presence. The judge also declined to reduce the monetary
bail, opining that he would have originally set it higher (even though he was the judge
who had actually imposed the $10,000 performance bond).
Our analysis of the superior court’s order
Article I, Section 11 of the Alaska Constitution entitles criminal
defendants to pretrial release on bail.2 Both the United States and Alaska Constitutions
prohibit the imposition of “excessive” bail.3 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.”4 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.”5
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,
1 AS 12.30.011(d)(2).
2 See Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 51 & n.6 (Alaska 1971) (citing Alaska Const. art. I,
§ 12) (excepting defendants in “certain capital cases”).
3 U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Alaska Const. art. I, § 12.
4 Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 237 (Alaska App. 2019).
5 AS 12.30.011(b).

Corbett v. State, A-14735
September 12, 2025 - Page 5
and the trial court is in the best position to make this determination.’”6 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.”7
Corbett argues that the superior court’s rejection of the Dom as a
placement was an abuse of discretion because the record shows that the Dom is well-
equipped to handle pretrial defendants such as Corbett. We agree with Corbett that there
are many aspects of the Dom’s programming that are, in some ways, superior to the
supervision Corbett would receive from a layperson third-party custodian. But the
superior court’s main concern in the present case was the need to protect public safety
in the face of what seemed to be an entirely random, unprovoked, and nearly deadly
attack on a stranger. Given these circumstances, we conclude that it was not
unreasonable for the court to insist on the type of one-to-one supervision that a third-
party custodian can provide. That is, while another judge may have weighed the
proposal differently and permitted Corbett to reside at the Dom, we believe that the
superior court acted within its broad discretion when it denied the proposed Dom
placement under the specific facts presented here, particularly given that the superior
court had reviewed substantially more information about the case than we have.
We similarly conclude that the superior court did not act unreasonably
when it declined to reduce the monetary bail to $1,000. We have previously explained
that, when a trial court “sets a monetary bail above the defendant’s ability to pay,” the
6 Moe v. State, 570 P.3d 925, 935 (Alaska App. 2025) (quoting Pisano v. State, 2018
WL 11306173, at *2 (Alaska App. May 24, 2018) (unpublished bail order)).
7 Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Lindbo v. Colaska, Inc.,
414 P.3d 646, 651 (Alaska 2018)).

Corbett v. State, A-14735
September 12, 2025 - Page 6
court “must provide a ‘particularized statement’ that addresses how the monetary
amount was calculated and that directly explains ‘why no less restrictive conditions will
suffice.’”8 While the court could have said more to explain its reasoning, we conclude
that its comments at the original superior court arraignment (when it set the $10,000
performance bond in the face of the State’s request for a $50,000 performance bond and
$25,000 appearance bond), combined with its later findings regarding the “very high
danger” Corbett poses to the community given his alleged commission of a “random,
brutal, and unprovoked” attack, are sufficient to satisfy this requirement.
Conclusion
The superior court’s bail order is AFFIRMED.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Ryan Montgomery-Sythe,
Chief Deputy Clerk
cc: Judge McKenna
Trial Court Clerk – Anchorage
Court of Appeals Judges
8 Francis v. State, 2021 WL 1346285, at *2 n.10 (Alaska App. Jan. 15, 2021)
(unpublished bail order) (quoting Brangan v. Commonwealth, 80 N.E.3d 949, 964-66
(Mass. 2017)).

Corbett v. State, A-14735
September 11, 2025 - Page 7
Distribution:
Email:
Danner, Lars, Public Defender
Soderstrom, Donald