Jeffrey Dyson v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
Jeffrey Dyson, )
) Court of Appeals No. A-13334
Appellant, )
v. ) Order
)
State of Alaska, )
)
Appellee. ) Date of Order: January 14, 2019
)
Trial Court Case # 3AN-18-10279CR
Before: Chief Judge Mannheimer and Judge Allard
Jeffrey Dyson is charged with second-degree assault for allegedly
strangling his wife in October 2018. This is the first time that Dyson has been charged
with a crime.
Dyson is currently out of custody on bail conditions that include a $5,000
appearance bond and 24-hour house arrest on electronic monitoring administered by the
Pretrial Enforcement Division, with passes for work, medical appointments, court
appearances, and attorney visits. Dyson’s bail conditions also require him to remain in
Alaska. These conditions were set at Dyson’s arraignment, prior to the appointment of
counsel to assist him.
Dyson now seeks modification of his bail conditions so that he continue to
work as a pilot for Atlas Air Cargo. As part of his duties, Dyson is routinely required to
fly cargo planes outside Alaska.

Jeffrey Dyson v. State of Alaska
Court of Appeals No. A-13334
January 14, 2019 Order
Page 2
At a December 11, 2018 bail hearing in the superior court, Dyson asked the
court to remove the electronic monitoring condition and the “do not depart Alaska”
condition. Dyson offered to post additional monetary bail in lieu of electronic
monitoring, and he also offered to sign a waiver of extradition.
Dyson’s wife was present at the bail hearing, and she stated that she did not
oppose the Dyson’s request to remove the electronic monitoring requirement. However,
the judge commented that Dyson’s wife seemed “hesitant” about this matter. In response
to the judge’s comment, Dyson’s wife reaffirmed that she did not oppose Dyson’s
request, but she questioned whether removal of the electronic monitoring condition was
actually necessary for Dyson to continue working as a pilot for the air cargo company.
Dyson’s attorney stated that Dyson really did not need to alter the electronic
monitoring condition except for the time that he needed to fly out-of-state. Accordingly,
Dyson’s attorney indicated that, if the court removed the electronic monitoring condition
while Dyson was flying out-of-state, Dyson would be willing to resume electronic
monitoring within 12 hours of his return to Anchorage.
In an attempt to resolve this matter, the judge asked the prosecutor whether
the State would oppose the removal of the “do not depart Alaska” requirement if Dyson
signed a waiver of extradition. But the prosecutor did not have a chance to reply to the
judge’s question, because the defense attorney interrupted.
At this point, the judge declared that he was not sure whether the Pretrial
Enforcement Division would be able to repeatedly interrupt and resume electronic
monitoring, as Dyson was proposing. The judge asked the defense attorney to check
with the Division, to see if the Division was agreeable to the defense attorney’s

Jeffrey Dyson v. State of Alaska
Court of Appeals No. A-13334
January 14, 2019 Order
Page 3
proposal, or if there was some other arrangement that the Division was willing to agree
to. But instead of agreeing to this course of action, the defense attorney declared that he
and his client would simply “take our shot on appeal,” and then he left the bail hearing.
Dyson now appeals the superior court’s decision. But the record shows that
the bail hearing ended without the judge issuing a final ruling on Dyson’s alternative
proposal of intermittent electronic monitoring or on the deletion of the “do not depart
Alaska” requirement. We accordingly find that Dyson’s bail proposal is not yet ripe for
review.
Because the superior court has yet to issue a final order on these matters,
this appeal is DISMISSED as not ripe.
Dyson should return to the superior court and resume his litigation of these
matters. At any new hearing, the superior court is entitled to inquire whether the Pretrial
Enforcement Division (or any other electronic monitoring entity) is able to accommodate
the intermittent monitoring envisioned by Dyson’s proposal. But the court’s ultimate
task is to identify the least restrictive conditions required to reasonably assure the
defendant’s presence at future court proceedings and the safety of the victim and the
community.
We also direct the superior court to provide clear findings regarding the
reasons why the imposed conditions are necessary, and we also suggest that if the judge
intends to rely on non-verbal communication that takes place in the courtroom, the judge
should describe that non-verbal communication for the record, so that these aspects of
the judge’s findings are available for review.

Jeffrey Dyson v. State of Alaska
Court of Appeals No. A-13334
January 14, 2019 Order
Page 4
Entered at the direction of the court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
/s/ M. Montgomery
Meredith Montgomery
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Judge Franciosi
Trial Court Appeals Clerk- Anchorage
Distribution: (via email and mail)
James Christie
Tetlow Christie, LLC
745 W 4th Avenue, Suite 250
Anchorage AK 99501
Anna Cometa
District Attorney’s Office
310 K Street Ste 520
Anchorage AK 99501