By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from a man who received one of the highest prison sentences ever given in Alaska to a juvenile convicted of murder.
In an order published Friday, the court concluded that the recantation of a key witness is not enough to warrant a retrial for Brian Hall, who was 17 at the time. In 1995, Hall was sentenced to 159 years in prison for the killing of two men in Anchorage, Mickey Dinsmore and Stanley Honeycutt.
Despite the rejection, wrote Judge Marjorie Allard on behalf of the court, Hall is eligible for resentencing as part of a wave of juvenile punishments being reconsidered by state courts.
“At sentencing, the court sentenced Hall to 159 years to serve, one of the highest sentences — if not the highest sentence — that a juvenile tried as an adult in Alaska has ever received,” she wrote. “As a juvenile sentenced in 1995 to a de facto life without parole sentence, Hall has been granted the opportunity for a resentencing in which his youth and the unique attributes of youth will be appropriately considered.”
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment prohibits courts from sentencing children to life in prison without the possibility of parole, except in homicide cases.
Two years ago, the state appeals court said the Alaska Constitution imposes further limits in addition to those provided by the U.S. Constitution.
Since then, Alaska courts have resentenced several former juveniles who were sentenced to long terms in prison. In September, Alaska’s youngest convicted female murderer was released from prison on parole after 40 years behind bars.
Hall, who has been in prison for 30 years, could receive similar treatment.
At the time of his trial, Hall claimed he acted in self-defense and that he believed, based on a statement from then-15-year-old Monica Shelton, that Dinsmore and Honeycutt — the people he killed — were armed.
At trial, Shelton denied telling Hall that the two were armed. Hall was convicted and sentenced with that testimony.
While in prison, Hall married Angela Diaz (now Angela Hall), and Angela hired a defense investigator who got in contact with Shelton. In a recorded interview, Shelton said she was scared at trial and lied in her testimony.
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Hall said he is full of remorse about his crime and isn’t the same person he was at 17.
Years of legal arguments followed the investigator’s interview as Hall first requested a new trial, then asked for post-conviction relief.
Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman dismissed that request, siding with state prosecutors who had raised procedural errors, including the idea that Hall’s filings were too late.
He also concluded that Hall failed to show that Shelton’s recantation would “probably result in an acquittal,” the standard that applies to timely filings for post-conviction relief.
Allard, writing on behalf of the appeals court, overruled Zeman on the procedural elements of Hall’s argument but concluded that even with the recanted testimony, it wasn’t clear that a new trial would result in a new outcome.
“The problem that Hall still faces, notwithstanding Shelton’s recantation, is that the rest of the evidence from trial indicates that Hall’s mistaken belief that he had to use deadly force … was not objectively reasonable,” she wrote.
“Hall was required to show that, viewing all the well-pleaded facts in the light most favorable to Hall, it is “highly probable” that Shelton’s recantation would result in an acquittal at any retrial,” Allard said.
“But while Shelton’s recantation constitutes important new evidence that sheds more light on Hall’s motivations and the reasons for his subjective fear, it does not alter the fact that his actions in shooting both men still appear overly impulsive and objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.”
Even with that finding, Hall is eligible for resentencing, Allard said.
“As part of that resentencing, the court should take into account Shelton’s recantation and the effect of that recantation on Hall’s level of culpability.”
