The Alaska Court of Appeals recently ruled that changes made to the state's sentencing laws in 2013 cannot be applied retroactively to Yako William Collins, who was convicted of a first-degree sexual assault in 2009. This decision affects Collins and other defendants who committed their crimes before the legislative changes were enacted. The ruling emphasizes the importance of the ex post facto clause in protecting individuals from retroactive application of laws that could increase their punishment.
The case, Yako William Collins v. State of Alaska, was filed under docket number A-12816 and was decided on October 2, 2026. The court's opinion was delivered by Judge Mannheimer, with Judges Harbison and Bolger also participating. The ruling clarifies how the state’s laws regarding presumptive sentencing should be interpreted, particularly in light of legislative changes that occurred after Collins's conviction.
Collins was found guilty of first-degree sexual assault in 2009 and faced a presumptive sentencing range of 20 to 30 years. He requested that his case be referred to a three-judge panel for a potential reduction in his sentence, but this request was denied by the sentencing judge. Collins appealed this decision, and in a previous ruling (Collins I), the court found that he should have the opportunity to pursue this request.
Following the Collins I decision, the Alaska legislature enacted changes in 2013 that altered the presumptive sentencing statutes. These changes were intended to clarify the legislature's intent regarding sentencing for sexual felonies. However, the court found that these changes could not be applied to Collins's case, as he committed his crime before the changes were made.
In its ruling, the court stated, “the ex post facto clause prohibits retrospective application of the legislature's 2013 changes to the presumptive sentencing statutes.” The judges emphasized that because Collins committed his crime before the 2013 amendments, he should be sentenced under the law that existed at that time.
The court's decision also addressed the concept of “clarifying legislation.” This legal doctrine allows for new laws to clarify existing statutes, but the court noted that this can only occur when the meaning of a statute is unsettled. The Alaska Supreme Court had previously ruled that the legislature could not clarify a statute after a court had already issued a binding interpretation of that statute.
In this case, the Alaska Supreme Court had previously determined that the 2013 amendments were not merely clarifying but constituted a change in the law. The appellate court reiterated that the retrospective application of these changes would violate the ex post facto clause, which protects defendants from being punished under laws that were enacted after their crimes were committed.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Collins. It reinforces the principle that individuals cannot be subjected to harsher penalties due to changes in the law that occur after their offenses. This decision may influence future cases involving similar circumstances, ensuring that defendants are treated according to the laws in place at the time of their offenses.
Furthermore, this ruling highlights the ongoing dialogue between the legislative and judicial branches regarding the interpretation and application of laws. The court's emphasis on the ex post facto clause serves as a reminder of the protections afforded to defendants under the Alaska Constitution.
As for what’s next, Collins is entitled to renew his application for referral to the three-judge sentencing panel based on the non-statutory mitigating factors previously recognized by the court. The court did not retain jurisdiction over this case, allowing Collins to pursue the next steps in the sentencing process.