Reed v. State
| Docket Number | 124,279 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2023 |
| Parties | Noah Demetrius Reed, Appellant, v. State of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; Faith A.J. Maughan, judge. Submitted without oral argument.
Kristen B. Patty, of Wichita, for appellant, and Noah Demetrius Reed, appellant pro se.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett district attorney, and Kris W. Kobach, attorney general, for appellee.
Before Hill, P.J., Hurst, J., and Timothy G. Lahey, S.J.
Noah Demetrius Reed appeals the district court's denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, contending that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the district court's denial of Reed's self-defense immunity motion. We find no error by the district court and affirm.
In 2016, the State charged Reed with several crimes, including attempted first-degree murder. Because Reed maintained that he acted out of self-defense, his attorney filed a pretrial motion under Kansas' self-defense immunity statute. K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5231. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion in accord with the then-prevailing standard by viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the State. See e.g., State v Evans, 51 Kan.App.2d 1043, 1050, 360 P.3d 1086 (2015) rev'd 305 Kan. 1072, 389 P.3d 1278 (2017); State v. Hardy, 51 Kan.App.2d 296, 304, 347 P.3d 222 (2015), rev'd 305 Kan. 1001, 390 P.3d 30 (2017). After the district court denied Reed's immunity motion, Reed proceeded to a jury trial where he asserted the same self-defense claim he advanced in his pretrial motion. The jury rejected Reed's self-defense claim, and he was convicted of the lesser included offense of attempted second-degree murder, criminal threat, and aggravated kidnapping.
After the verdict, but before sentencing, the Kansas Supreme Court decided State v. Hardy, 305 Kan. 1001, 390 P.3d 30 (2017), clarifying that a district court considering a defendant's pretrial motion for dismissal under Kansas' self-defense immunity statute should view the evidence without deference to the State rather than in a light most favorable to the State. In conjunction with Reed's motion for new trial, and based on Hardy, the district court reconsidered Reed's immunity motion but still denied it.
Reed's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Reed, No. 117,718, 2018 WL 4839660 (Kan. App. 2018) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 310 Kan. 1069 (2019). Reed then filed the present K.S.A. 60-1507 motion asking this court to reverse his convictions or remand to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. He contends that his direct appeal attorney was ineffective for failing to argue that the district court erred in denying his immunity motion post-Hardy. The district court initially dismissed Reed's motion without any type of hearing, but in response to Reed's motion for clarification, the court appointed counsel for Reed and set the matter for hearing. Following the hearing, in which Reed testified, the court reaffirmed its earlier denial of Reed's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion, finding that his claims lacked merit. In this appeal, Reed argues that the district court erred in dismissing his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in which he asserts his direct appeal attorney was ineffective for failing to argue that the district court erred in denying his immunity motion post-Hardy.
In 2016, the State charged Reed with one count each of attempted first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, attempted rape, criminal threat, and aggravated kidnapping. Reed maintained that these charges arose from an act of self-defense, so his attorney asked the court to dismiss the first two counts against him under Kansas' self-defense immunity statute, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5231. The self-defense immunity statute provides that a person who is justified in using deadly force in self-defense is entitled to immunity from prosecution. Procedurally, as Hardy explains, it is the court's function to prevent cases in which self-defense is justified from going to trial, as a defendant has a right against continued prosecution if the State cannot establish probable cause that the defendant did not use statutorily justified force. See State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643, 659, 479 P.3d 176 (2021).
The initial self-defense immunity hearing.
Reed's immunity motion explained his understanding of what happened in R.D's apartment the morning she was stabbed multiple times. The night before the incident, Reed arrived at R.D.'s apartment to sell marijuana to R.D.'s neighbor. Reed and R.D. consumed alcohol and marijuana in R.D.'s apartment, disrobed, and went to bed. Early the next morning, Reed claimed he was robbed by R.D. and two unknown males. The motion claimed Reed fought off the two males, driving them from the apartment. And, according to the motion, Reed barricaded the apartment door with a couch to prevent the males from reentering, believing he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
The evidence in the immunity hearing included testimony from three police officers, one police sergeant, and Reed. The State admitted several exhibits, including photos of Reed's injuries, video footage, and the preliminary hearing transcript where R.D. testified that Reed stabbed her and was attacking her.
Officer Zachary Gehring testified that when he arrived on the scene, he heard R.D. yelling, "'Help me,'" from inside. Officer Aric St. Vrain repeatedly attempted to get someone to answer the door, and when that failed, he worked to forcibly enter the apartment-which was difficult because the door was barricaded on the inside with a couch. According to Officer Gehring, Reed said he was hit in the head with a vase and robbed, while R.D. stated that Reed stabbed her and was going to rape her. Officer St. Vrain testified that he did not hear a disturbance until knocking on R.D.'s door when he heard a female-later identified as R.D.-yelling for help and a "glass breaking as if there was a disturbance inside."
Reed testified that he vaguely remembered the morning of the incident and that he was drunk and high at the time. Reed recalled that after R.D. woke him up, he was hit in the head with a vase and attacked by R.D. and two males. Reed later added new details to his story, including that he was punched and hit with a bat and other objects. According to Reed, R.D. came at him with a knife, but he did not remember stabbing her. And Reed testified that he had to "fight off whoever [he] had to fight off so [he] could be ok." When Reed was asked if he acted in self-defense, he stated,
The parties contested how the court should view the immunity evidence. At the time of the immunity hearing, the district court followed the rule established by our court in self-defense immunity hearings by weighing conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the State. See Hardy, 51 Kan.App.2d at 304 (); Evans, 51 Kan.App.2d at 1050. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the district court found probable cause that Reed "acted without legal justification in the use of force." In doing so, the court noted that it reviewed the preliminary transcript, the State's photographs, Miranda statements, and the testimony of the officers and Reed.
Reed proceeded to trial and did not abandon his self-defense claim-Reed presented his self-defense claim to the jury, and the jury received self-defense instructions. Reed's attorney told the jury that And when Reed was asked if he acted in self-defense, Reed replied much as he did at the immunity hearing:
On February 24, 2017, the jury found Reed guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted second-degree murder, criminal threat, and aggravated kidnapping, rejecting the contention that he acted in self-defense. The jury acquitted Reed of attempted rape.
On March 10, 2017-before Reed was sentenced-the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision in Hardy, clarifying the standard a district court should apply when reviewing an immunity motion. In Hardy, the court held that a district court "must consider the totality of the circumstances, weigh the evidence before it without deference to the State, and determine whether the State has carried its burden to establish probable cause that the defendant's use of force was not statutorily justified." 305 Kan. 1001, Syl. ¶ 1. Thus, the Supreme Court in Hardy instructed that the district court should have considered the evidence at Reed's immunity hearing without deference to the State. 305 Kan. 1001, Syl. ¶ 1.
Twelve days after the Supreme Court opinion was filed in Hardy, Reed filed a motion for a new trial and judgment of acquittal. The motion referenced his attorney's pretrial motion for immunity, but it did not mention the Kansas Supreme Court's opinion in Hardy. Still, Reed's attorney extensively addressed Hardy at the motion hearing after the State included the case in its response.
At the hearing on Reed's motion for a new trial and judgment of acquittal, the parties both agreed that because the Supreme Court's Hardy ruling was released after Reed's initial immunity hearing, the court should reconsider Reed's immunity request using the new standard from Hardy and enter an appropriate ruling.
After...
To continue reading
Request your trial