IV. CONCLUSION Because we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by denying both Raphael’s right to due process and his right to be present under Criminal Rule 38(a), and because these violations were plain errors allowing us to review them despite Raphael’s failure to object, we REVERSE Raphael’s conviction and REMAND for a new trial. 1 . Whether a trial court has violated a defendant's right to due process is a legal question to which we apply our independent judgment. See Lashbrook v. Lashbrook, 957 P.2d 326, 328 (Alaska 1998). 2 . Dimmick v. State, 473 P.2d 616, 619-20 (Alaska 1970). 3 . See Alaska R.Crim. P. 17(a). 4 . See id.; Tucker v. State, 721 P.2d 639, 642 (Alaska App.1986). 5 . See also Williams v. Calderon, 48 F.Supp.2d 979, 1000-01 (C.D.Cal.1998)- (<HOLDING>); Bradford v. Johnson, 354 F.Supp. 1331,
holding that the defendant had a cognizable habeas claim based on physical abuse of a government witness holding that sufficiency challenges are cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding holding claim is not cognizable holding claim that prior conviction was not serious felony under californias sentencing law not cognizable in federal habeas proceeding holding claim is cognizable