State v. Phillips
| Citation | 479 P.3d 176 |
| Decision Date | 15 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 121,075,121,075 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael L. PHILLIPS, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Kai Tate Mann, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.
In 2017, Michael L. Phillips shot and killed his brother, James Rotramel, outside the home they shared. Phillips also shot and seriously injured Kristofer Hooper during the same encounter. Phillips claimed he shot Rotramel and Hooper in self-defense and moved for immunity from prosecution under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5231. After conducting a full evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. Nevertheless, Phillips presented his self-defense theory at trial. The jury convicted him of first-degree murder and aggravated battery. The district court subsequently denied Phillips' motion for new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
On direct appeal, Phillips claims the district court erred in ruling on his immunity motion and his motion for new trial. He also argues the district court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on a lesser included offense to the aggravated battery charge. For the reasons outlined in this opinion, we affirm Phillips' convictions.
On a February night in 2017, James Rotramel wanted to attend a birthday party at a friend's house. Because Rotramel was under court-ordered supervision at the time, he needed a chaperone to go with him. He asked his brother, Michael Phillips, and Phillips agreed to go with Rotramel. At some point during the party, Phillips was overheard saying, "if you don't do dope and sell dope, you're not a man." As a result, the homeowners asked Phillips to leave, but Rotramel stayed.
Phillips returned to the home he shared with Rotramel and their mother. He was angry at Rotramel because he felt Rotramel did not stand up for him at the party. Between 2:00 a.m. and 3:08 a.m., Phillips exchanged a series of instant messages with Rotramel on Facebook Messenger. In the messages, Phillips expressed his anger at Rotramel and threatened to harm him when he came home.
In addition to the messages sent to Rotramel, Phillips posted on Facebook that he "love[d] to find how blood is weaker than shit" and implicitly called Rotramel out for a fight. Phillips messaged a friend, telling her Rotramel "will be lucky if i dont break his leg," and "if [the people at the party] dont beat his ass i will in the next few days." Phillips also messaged another one of his brothers, telling him "as of tonight you are the only thing I will ever call a brother." Phillips explained that "[Rotramel] left me high and dry to being called a tweaker. standing right there he lashed at me as the bad guy ... im breaking his leg when he comes home." He added, "after what he said to me on facebook, he will be lucky to breath at all," and "i wont mind 3 hots and a cot. on everyone elses dime."
Hooper gave Rotramel a ride home from the party. Two other partygoers rode in the back seat of Hooper's car. As Hooper pulled up to Rotramel's home, he heard a gunshot. Hooper turned the car around and parked on the street. He and Rotramel got out of the car.
Phillips and Rotramel lived on a 5-acre property located in a rural area outside Valley Center. The property included a house, set back about 145 feet to the west of the road, and a detached garage located just north of the house. The perimeter of the property was enclosed by a fence with a metal access gate located near the intersection of the road and the private driveway. The private driveway traversed generally east to west from the road to the garage. The metal access gate could be closed and locked to inhibit vehicles from accessing the property. On the north side of the house, facing the garage, there was a small, raised wooden deck or porch attached to the home. The porch stairs led to a paver stone patio area between the house and the garage. On the east side of the patio there was a wooden privacy fence facing the road that extended from the north side of the house to the south side of the garage with a gate located roughly in the middle. On the west side of the patio, there was a white picket fence facing the backyard that generally ran parallel to the wooden privacy fence.
After getting out of the car, Rotramel and Hooper jumped the outer perimeter fence surrounding the property, ran toward the house, and entered the open gate of the privacy fence leading to the patio. Phillips shot Rotramel and then Hooper on the patio. A 911 call reporting the shooting came in around 3:17 a.m. Rotramel died from a single gunshot wound that transected his right femoral artery. Hooper survived a gunshot wound to his left hip.
The State charged Phillips with first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated battery. Phillips filed a motion to dismiss, claiming he acted in self-defense and was immune from prosecution under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5231. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Phillips testified at the immunity hearing. He denied talking about "dope" at the party, which he understood to mean methamphetamine. According to Phillips' testimony, Rotramel was present when Phillips was asked to leave the party, and Phillips and Rotramel had heated words. Phillips testified a "big guy" then grabbed his arm and led him toward the road. That guy told Phillips, Phillips testified this guy then lifted his shirt and showed the handle of a pistol.
After Phillips drove home, he locked the gate across the driveway. That gate was not normally locked, but Phillips claimed he locked it that night because he was scared. He went inside and tried to talk to Rotramel on Facebook but claimed Rotramel was being disrespectful. Phillips also admitted that the tone of his communications with Rotramel leading up to the shooting was "a little aggressive." When Rotramel sent a message to Phillips claiming he was coming home and bringing the "big fucking ginger," Phillips said he thought Rotramel was referring to the guy at the party who had the pistol.
Eventually, Phillips decided Rotramel was just blowing off steam in their communications and did not intend to take any action, so Phillips went outside to have a cigarette. While outside, Phillips claimed he saw a car driving past the house with its headlights off when someone inside the car waved something that looked like a pistol. Phillips explained that when the same car drove past the house a second time, he went into the garage to get a 50-caliber black powder rifle. He came back outside and fired the rifle into the air as the car drove by a third time. Phillips explained that he fired the gun to make sure he would be the target of any possible drive-by shooting, rather than his mother, Teresa, who was inside the house.
After Phillips fired the rifle, he testified Teresa came outside and asked what he was doing. Phillips told her he was trying to chase away Rotramel's friends and she should go back in the house. Phillips then went back in the garage, grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun, and loaded it with several shells.
Phillips exited the garage onto the patio. He said he saw two people about 10 to 15 feet away running toward him but could not see who they were and could not remember if they were carrying anything. Phillips testified that he fired, fearing he might not otherwise live, but intentionally aimed low because he "wasn't trying to kill nobody." He claimed he did not know he was shooting his brother at that time. After the first shot, Phillips said one of the two people ran into him, and they staggered together all the way back to the white picket fence. Phillips then fired a second time.
After firing the second shot, Phillips said he took a few steps toward the privacy fence gate but dropped the gun and ran when he saw more people getting out of the car. Phillips said someone followed him, so he turned around, put his hands up, and said, "[S]hoot me if you're gonna," because he was scared. The person said, "I'm on your side," but Phillips responded, "[N]o, no. I just shot your friends." Phillips said he then took off running to a neighbor's house to call 911. He told his neighbor that he had shot two people, and he was afraid one of them was Rotramel. At the hearing, Phillips explained that he was afraid he may have shot Rotramel because he assumed Rotramel had been one of the people in the car, and he could tell the other two people who got out of the car after the shooting were not Rotramel.
Phillips' account of events varied in several material respects from the evidence offered by the State at the immunity hearing. Detective Brian Hollyfield testified he interviewed Phillips shortly after the shooting. Phillips recounted the night's events for Hollyfield but did not say anything about seeing a gun at the party. Hollyfield also interviewed Phillips' neighbor. She said Phillips told her he had shot two people and one of them was his brother.
Hooper also testified at the immunity hearing. He did not recall seeing any weapons at the party or any person displaying a weapon. After Phillips left the party, Hooper agreed to give Rotramel a ride home later that night. Hooper left the party with Rotramel and two other people, and he planned to drop off Rotramel first. Hooper testified that Rotramel did not appear agitated or angry on the drive home, and nobody discussed any plan to confront Phillips. As far as Hooper knew, nobody in the car had any weapons. Earlier in the hearing, forensic investigator Tiffany Morland testified that no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shockley
...is no question that "a continuance is a critical stage of trial at which a defendant has a right to be present." State v. Phillips , 312 Kan. 643, 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021) (citing State v. Wright , 305 Kan. 1176, 1178, 390 P.3d 899 [2017] ). And this court specifically has held that a defen......
-
State v. Peterson
...668, 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and since applied in the Kansas courts. State v. Phillips, 312 Kan. 643, 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Chamberlain v. State, 236 Kan. 650, Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 694 P.2d 468 (1985). To prevail under Strickland, a defendant must show both that his......
-
State v. Peterson
... ... We use ... the test for constitutionally inadequate legal representation ... developed in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, ... 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and since ... applied in the Kansas courts. State v. Phillips , 312 ... Kan. 643, 676, 479 P.3d 176 (2021); Chamberlain v ... State , 236 Kan. 650, Syl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 694 P.2d ... 468 (1985). To prevail under Strickland , a defendant ... must show both that his or her legal representation ... "fell below an objective standard of ... ...
-
In re J.A.
...probability that the outcome would have been more favorable with competent representation. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 694; Phillips, 312 Kan. at 676. Reasonable entails that degree of "skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial testing process." Strickland, 466......