In a significant ruling, the Alaska Court of Appeals decided that changes made to the state's sentencing laws in 2013 cannot be applied retroactively to defendants who committed crimes before those changes were enacted. This decision, issued on October 2, 2026, affects individuals like Yako William Collins, who was convicted of first-degree sexual assault in 2009. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of the ex post facto clause in the Alaska Constitution, which prohibits retroactive application of laws that increase punishment.

The case, Collins v. State, No. A-12816, arose from Collins's appeal following his sentencing in 2009. At that time, Collins was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his crime, with five years suspended. He sought a referral to a three-judge sentencing panel, which could have reduced his sentence based on mitigating factors. However, his request was denied, leading to multiple appeals and a complex legal battle over the interpretation of Alaska's sentencing laws.

Initially, in 2012, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled in Collins I that Collins should have the opportunity to request a referral to the three-judge panel. The court identified two mitigating factors that could allow for a reduced sentence: a lack of history of unprosecuted sexual offenses and good prospects for rehabilitation. However, in response to this ruling, the Alaska legislature enacted changes in 2013 that explicitly barred defendants from seeking referrals to the three-judge panel based on those factors.

When Collins's case was reconsidered, the superior court concluded that the new legislative changes rendered the previous mitigating factors moot, leading to another denial of his request. Collins then appealed again, arguing that applying the new laws to his case would violate the ex post facto clause of the Alaska Constitution.

The court ruled that the ex post facto clause prohibits the retrospective application of the 2013 changes to the presumptive sentencing statutes. Judge Mannheimer, writing for the court, stated, "The ex post facto clause prohibits retrospective application of the legislature's 2013 changes to the presumptive sentencing statutes." This ruling means that Collins must be sentenced under the laws that were in place when he committed his crime.

The ruling highlighted the legal doctrine of clarifying legislation, which allows legislatures to clarify existing laws but prohibits them from changing laws that have already been interpreted by the courts. The Alaska Supreme Court had previously ruled that the 2013 amendments could not be considered clarifying legislation because the Alaska Court of Appeals had already issued a binding interpretation of the law in Collins I.

This decision has significant implications for Collins and other defendants in similar situations. It reinforces the principle that legislative changes cannot retroactively alter the legal landscape for individuals who committed crimes under previous laws. The ruling also underscores the importance of the ex post facto clause in protecting defendants from increased penalties after the fact.

Moving forward, this ruling ensures that Collins can renew his application for referral to the three-judge sentencing panel, relying on the mitigating factors recognized in Collins I. The court's decision affirms the need for legislative actions to respect established judicial interpretations, particularly in matters of criminal sentencing.

As for what’s next, Collins may pursue his renewed application for referral to the three-judge panel. There are no indications in the court filing about whether this decision can be appealed further. However, the ruling sets a clear precedent regarding the application of sentencing laws and the protections afforded to defendants under the Alaska Constitution.