{"id":6515,"date":"2017-12-15T20:36:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-16T04:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spijue.wpengine.com\/news\/court-of-appeals-affirms-convictions-in-2010-hoonah-murder-case\/"},"modified":"2017-12-15T20:36:00","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T04:36:00","slug":"court-of-appeals-affirms-convictions-in-2010-hoonah-murder-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.juneauempire.com\/news\/court-of-appeals-affirms-convictions-in-2010-hoonah-murder-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Court of Appeals affirms convictions in 2010 Hoonah murder case"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions this week of a man convicted of two counts of first-degree murder for killing two Hoonah police officers in 2010.<\/p>\n
In April 2013, John Nick Marvin Jr. was sentenced<\/a> to two 99-year prison terms for the shooting deaths of Officer Matthew Tokuoka, 39, and Sgt. Anthony Wallace, 32, on Aug. 28, 2010. According to a memorandum opinion<\/a> issued by the Court of Appeals Chief Judge David Mannheimer this week, Marvin challenged his convictions on two grounds, saying that he was not competent to stand trial and that if he had been competent to stand trial, his trial should have been moved out of Juneau because of adverse pre-trial publicity.<\/p>\n The memorandum opinion looks back at a long evaluation process for Marvin, which included a stay in the Alaska Psychiatric Institute. Dr. David Sperbeck conducted multiple evaluations on Marvin, including listening to audio recordings of Marvin talking with his defense attorney. In the recordings, Sperbeck found, Marvin was purposely evasive and uncooperative.<\/p>\n In Sperbeck’s opinion, according to this week’s memorandum opinion, “Marvin was competent to stand trial because he had the capacity — although not the willingness — to assist his attorney.” On appeal, according to the memorandum opinion, Marvin, currently 52, argued that Sperbeck was merely speculating when he was ruling on Marvin’s competency.<\/p>\n The memorandum opinion asserts that the court did a thorough job in evaluating Sperbeck’s findings and showed a good understanding of the conclusions at the time. On this basis, the Court of Appeals upheld the superior court’s decision that Marvin was competent to stand trial.<\/p>\n