Nome man sentenced to 25 years in jail for murdering girlfriend in 2020
Tyler Shold, 31, was sentenced on Tuesday to 40 years incarceration, with 15 years suspended, 25 years to serve and 10 years probation for murdering his girlfriend, 24-year-old Anna Matoomealook, on January 8, 2020 in Nome.
In a two-and-a-half hour long emotional sentencing hearing, family of Matoomealook addressed Superior Court Judge Roman DiBenedetto with the plea to punish Shold to the full extent of the law for cruelly taking their darling, precious and irreplaceable daughter, sister, cousin from them. Her foster parents spoke of Anna as a highly intelligent and athletically gifted young woman, who very cautiously dispensed her love. They described how the state has wronged her as she fell through the proverbial cracks of the system and was prevented from being adopted by her foster parents who fought so hard for her, but to no avail. Finally, her foster father said, when they tried to rebuild their relationship, her life was senselessly snuffed out when Shold choked her to death. He said he felt robbed of that opportunity to have a fully restored relationship with her.
According to court documents, the murder happened in the couple’s shared residence in the 200 block of East Fourth Avenue on Jan. 8, 2020, just before 2 a.m. Shold called NPD dispatch for help for his girlfriend Anna Matoomealook, 24. When police entered the house, the officers found Shold leaning over Matoomealook, lying unresponsive on the bed.
Assistant District Attorney Ashly
Crockett described the murder as a situation of domestic violence involving power, control and rage. “As your honor knows, domestic violence is at an absolute crisis point in the state of Alaska,” Crockett said. “Murder is one of the leading causes of death of Indigenous women in our country.” She said that nothing that happens at the sentencing can take away the grief and loss that the family experiences. She then said the defendant has agreed to a guilty plea for murder in the second degree and a sentence of 40 years, 15 years suspended and 25 active years to serve.
Shold’s attorney said that the defendant is taking responsibility for the crime. He won’t be eligible for parole during the 25 mandatory years in jail and “he’s remorseful for his actions.”
Shold briefly spoke, saying that he didn’t wish this on anybody and that he’s truly sorry. “I did that. I’m sorry, your honor, whatever you give me, I accept,” he said.
Judge DiBenedetto said that he’s
proposed mine.
“I don’t know that your environmental impact statement looks at things holistically,” Bahnke said. “It’s looking at what possibly could happen on these very specific points on the map if the restrictions are lifted, but I encourage BLM to look at more holistically all of the challenges that we’re facing.”
Back in December, BLM released a nearly 400-page draft of an environmental impact statement, or EIS, that outlines the potential effects of taking away protections on D-1 lands in Alaska.
As Emily Murray of Elim said in her testimony, “You have to almost become a lawyer to look at deciphering what’s in it, and how can we as Native people, Indigenous people respond to such a thick document?”
D-1 lands were reserved under section 17(d)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. They were meant to fulfill future claims by Native corporations and the state, but they were never turned over.
The Trump administration had advanced a plan to lift D-1 protections. But the Biden administration halted that plan and began a process to study its potential impacts. The draft is meant to guide U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland in her decision about whether to lift the D-1 protections; the public comment period on that draft will close on Feb. 14. Comments can be submitted by mail or online, but BLM has also been traveling around the state to collect public input. After the meeting in Nome, the group was set to go to Unalakleet.
The draft EIS puts forth four possible options for the 28 million acres in question across the state. Put simply, Alternative A would retain all D-1 protections, and Alternative D would lift all D-1 protections, while Alternatives B and C would see some protections retained and others lifted.
All seven commentors who gave testimony on Thursday advocated for Alternative A.
The lands that could lose protections include areas in the Darby Mountains, the Kigluiak Mountains and the upper Bendeleben Mountains.
Some of the D-1 lands are topfiled by the state, meaning they were claimed by the state but were unavailable at the time of their selection. If D-1 protections are lifted in those lands, the state could take over management. This could have implications for subsistence users in the region, as the state does not legally prioritize subsistence in the same way that the federal government does, as a few commenters noted in their testimony.
Murray, who is vice president of the Norton Bay Watershed Council, said that revoking the D-1 land withdrawals would severely impact the region’s subsistence economy.
“Alaska rural communities are predominantly engaged in a subsistence economy with a cash overlay,” Murray said. “Alaska Indigenous people hold a complex, innate connection to clean water, salmon, edible greens and berries and wildlife from both the land and ocean based on the sustainable economy.”
Others drew a connection between preserving these subsistence resources and the continuity of Alaska Native culture.
“As Alaskan Natives we rely on these lands to continue our way of life passed down generation to generation,” said Kerry Ahmasuk, who was born and raised in Nome. “I urge that we protect the D-1 lands and take no action.”
The revocation could open new lands to certain forms of mineral entry. For example, there are D-1 parcels adjacent to the state-owned area where Graphite One wants to build a mine north of Nome. Many of these parcels are top-filed by the state. A loss of D-1 protections could potentially open new areas for Graphite One to expand its operation.
While dozens of tribes have asked for the D-1 protections to be retained, Alaska’s two Republican U.S. Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, have advocated the opposite position. Last year, the senators reintroduced legislation intended to lift D-1 protections by codifying the Trump administration’s land orders.