 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanden v. State5/30/2001
he defendant did not appeal), or within one year of the date the conviction was affirmed on appeal.
Sanden did not appeal his 1994 conviction. Thus, Judge Murphy concluded, the statute of limitations expired in 1996 and Sanden no longer had the right to attack his 1994 plea.
In his brief to this court, Sanden does not challenge (or even mention) Judge Murphy's ruling that Sanden's collateral attack on his 1994 conviction was time-barred under AS 12.72.020(a)(3)(A). Accordingly, we affirm Judge Murphy's ruling because Sanden has failed to adequately brief the issue.
Although the record shows that Sanden filed a motion attacking the validity of the 1997 conviction, nothing in the record shows that Sanden ever obtained a ruling on that motion. We conclude that Sanden did not preserve his attack on the 1997 DWI conviction because he did not press the court for a ruling on his motion.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|