The Alaska Court of Appeals recently ruled that changes made to the state's presumptive sentencing laws in 2013 cannot be applied retroactively to Yako William Collins, a defendant convicted of sexual assault. This decision, issued on October 2, 2026, is significant as it protects defendants like Collins from harsher penalties based on laws enacted after their crimes were committed.
The ruling stems from Collins's appeal regarding his sentencing for a first-degree sexual assault committed in 2008. Collins was sentenced in 2009 to 25 years in prison, with five years suspended. He sought a referral to a three-judge sentencing panel to potentially receive a lesser sentence. However, his request was denied, leading to a series of appeals that ultimately reached the Alaska Court of Appeals.
The case has a complex history involving multiple court decisions and legislative actions. In 2012, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Collins, stating he should have the opportunity to seek a referral to the three-judge panel based on mitigating factors. This ruling was based on the understanding that the legislature had increased sentencing ranges for sexual felonies in 2006, which raised concerns about the treatment of sexual offenders.
In response to the 2012 ruling, the Alaska legislature passed a law in 2013 that explicitly barred defendants like Collins from seeking referrals to the three-judge panel based on the mitigating factors identified in the earlier court decision. This law took effect while Collins's case was still under review, complicating his appeal.
In its decision, the Alaska Court of Appeals, led by Judge Mannheimer, concluded that the ex post facto clause of the Alaska Constitution prohibits the retrospective application of the 2013 changes to the sentencing laws. The court stated, "The ex post facto clause prohibits retrospective application of the legislature's 2013 changes to the presumptive sentencing statutes." This means Collins must be sentenced under the laws that were in place at the time he committed his crime.
The court emphasized that the changes made by the legislature in 2013 were substantive and not merely procedural. The ruling highlighted that the changes created a substantial risk that defendants like Collins would receive longer sentences than they would have under the previous law. As a result, the court ordered that Collins be allowed to renew his application for referral to the three-judge panel, allowing him to rely on the previously recognized mitigating factors.
This ruling is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the protections offered by the ex post facto clause, ensuring that individuals cannot be penalized under laws that were enacted after their offenses. It also sets a precedent for future cases involving changes to sentencing laws, particularly those that could affect the outcomes for defendants who committed their crimes before such laws were enacted.
The decision may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly for those convicted of sexual offenses. It underscores the importance of maintaining fair sentencing practices and ensuring that defendants are treated according to the laws that were in place at the time of their offenses.
Looking ahead, Collins's case could still be appealed further, but the court's ruling provides a clear directive on how his sentencing should be handled. The decision also opens the door for other defendants in similar situations to seek relief based on the same legal principles. The outcome of this case may have lasting implications for the interpretation of Alaska's sentencing laws and the rights of defendants.