Harris v. State, A-13950

CourtCourt of Appeals of Alaska
PartiesDe Anthony Malik Harris, Appellant, v. State of Alaska, Appellee.
Docket NumberA-13950
Decision Date21 April 2022

De Anthony Malik Harris, Appellant,
v.

State of Alaska, Appellee.

No. A-13950

Court of Appeals of Alaska

April 21, 2022


Trial Court Case No. 3AN-16-09996CR

Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.

ORDER

MOTION FOR RELEASE PRIOR TO JUDGMENT

De Anthony Malik Harris appeals from the bail order issued in this case on January 4, 2022. This is the second time this case is before us on a bail appeal.

As we noted in our last order, Harris is charged, as principal or accomplice, with several counts of first- and second-degree murder and one count of first-degree robbery in connection with the shooting deaths of Christopher and Danielle Brooks in 2016.[1] According to the complaint, Harris and three other men entered the Brooks's residence with shirts covering their faces, intending to steal drugs and money. During a struggle with Christopher Brooks, one of the men shot and killed the couple while their young child was in the home.[2]

In his first bail appeal, Harris challenged the superior court's rejection of one of his two proposed third-party custodians. (The court approved the other proposed custodian.) Harris also challenged the superior court's refusal to reconsider his monetary bail amount - which had been set at a $250, 000 cash performance bond and a $250, 000

1

cash or corporate appearance bond. Harris had requested a reduction to a $5, 000 cash performance bond, plus an unsecured appearance bond.

Following our review of the record, we remanded Harris's case to the superior court for reconsideration of the proposed custodian.[3] Because a court must re-assess monetary bail in light of the bail conditions as a whole upon approval of an appropriate third-party custodian, we did not directly address Harris's arguments regarding his monetary bail.[4]

However, we directed the court to re-assess Harris's monetary proposal on remand.[5] We noted that, in evaluating whether Harris's bail conditions (including any monetary conditions) were the "least restrictive" means to reasonably ensure his appearance and protection of the community, the court was required to consider his ability to pay.[6] We further stated that if, on remand, "the court determine[d] that the monetary bail should be set above [Harris's] ability to pay, the court [was required to] provide case-specific reasons for why this amount of monetary bail [was] necessary in addition to whatever other supervision or protective measures" were in place.[7]

On remand, the court approved the previously denied third-party custodian. Additionally, the court heard arguments from both parties about the proper amount of

2

monetary bail. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated that it would take the question of monetary bail under advisement.

The court subsequently issued a written order addressing Harris's monetary bail request. The court acknowledged, based on the testimony of Harris and his family members at the bail hearing, that imposing a bail higher than the $5, 000 cash performance bond proposed by Harris appeared to be outside his ability to pay.[8] But the court found that Harris's ability to pay was outweighed by the nature and circumstances of the charges and the strength of the evidence against Harris.[9] In particular, the court found that the information before it indicated that the shootings resulted from a planned robbery in which Harris was alleged to have brought a firearm - and that the shootings occurred while the victims' young child was in the residence. The court found that Harris's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT