State v. Nicks

831 N.W.2d 493

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Nidjia Dean NICKS, Appellant.

Nos. A09–1641, A12–0348.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 31, 2013.

Syllabus by the Court

A defendant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a petition for postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must allege facts that, if proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence, would satisfy the two-prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The Minnesota Legislature has established the threshold a defendant must meet for a postconviction court to grant an evidentiary hearing. SeeMinn. Stat § 590.04 (2012).

Under Minn.Stat. § 590.04, a postconviction court must grant an evidentiary hearing unless, after the facts are considered in the light most favorable to a defendant, the court concludes that the defendant is conclusively entitled to no relief.

A postconviction court's denial of a petition for relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; and a postconviction court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an erroneous view of the law or is against logic and the facts in the record.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a petition for postconviction relief present mixed questions of law and fact and the court's decision whether to grant relief is reviewed de novo. Therefore, the court's denial of relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is reviewed to determine whether the court's factual findings are clearly erroneous and we then conduct a de novo review of the ineffective-assistance claim.

The postconviction court abused its discretion when it denied defendant's petition without a hearing because the defendant alleged sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rachel F. Bond, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, MN, for appellant.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Elizabeth Johnston, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice.

Nidjia Dean Nicks was convicted by the Hennepin County District Court of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Johanna Hollis and of the attempted first-degree murder of Hollis's daughter, A.R. At trial, the State was only able to present a minimal amount of direct evidence that connected Nicks to the scene of the shooting. Thus, the State had to rely primarily on circumstantial evidence that included certain cellphone records. The records indicated that Nicks was in the vicinity of the shooting and supported the assertion by two witnesses that Nicks made threats to Hollis during a cellphone call Nicks placed to Hollis at 12:11 a.m. on the night of the shooting. Nicks's cellphone records indicate that he placed two calls to Hollis's cellphone at 12:11 a.m. Nicks has consistently maintained that those two calls went to Hollis's voicemail, that he did not speak with Hollis that night, and that no threatening calls between him and Hollis occurred. Nicks's trial counsel requested the records for Hollis's cellphone from her service provider; but counsel did not correctly interpret the provider's response to the request and did not take further steps to obtain the records.

Following trial, Nicks filed a direct appeal with our court. While the direct appeal was pending, Nicks's appellate counsel retained a forensic expert to conduct an examination of Hollis's cellphone. Nicks alleges that this forensic examination revealed that Hollis could not have received the alleged threatening phone calls from his cellphone. After obtaining this information, Nicks's appellate counsel sought a stay of the direct appeal and petitioned for postconviction relief. The postconviction court denied Nicks's petition without an evidentiary hearing, and Nicks now brings both the direct appeal and the postconviction appeal to our court. On appeal, Nicks primarily alleges is that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel failed to obtain Hollis's cellphone records and failed to conduct a forensic examination of Hollis's cellphone. Because we conclude that Nicks has met the threshold showing required to receive an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we reverse the postconviction court and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

On March 2, 2008, Johanna Hollis was shot dead and her daughter, A.R., was grazed by a bullet after an assailant fired 16 shots into their south Minneapolis home. Several of Hollis's children lived with her, as did other relatives and acquaintances, including T.H., S.H., and S.H.'s girlfriend, V.T. For a period of time, a young woman named M.G. also lived with Hollis because both of M.G.'s parents were deceased and M.G. had a young daughter to care for. The Hollis children and M.G. were socially acquainted with the defendant, Nidjia Dean Nicks. In spring 2008, M.G. began dating Nicks and moved out of the Hollis home to live with Nicks. M.G. subsequently moved to a hotel room that Nicks rented for her in Brooklyn Center.

The relationship between the Hollis children and Nicks became antagonistic, largely because of an altercation between Nicks and V.T. The Hollis children believed that Nicks operated a prostitution ring and that he had been exploiting M.G. by making her work for him as a prostitute. This belief was upsetting to the Hollis family. The Hollis children also believed that Nicks was angry with V.T. because V.T.—who was 17 at the time of the shooting—“wouldn't have sexual contact” with him, or that Nicks had wanted V.T. to work for him as a prostitute and he was angry when she refused to do so.

Nicks's and M.G.'s testimony provided differing accounts of their relationship. According to Nicks and M.G., discord in the relationship between Nicks and V.T. began after Nicks and M.G. had been out socializing with V.T. Nicks stated that he offered to take both M.G. and V.T. home following several hours of partying, but both women wanted to continue to socialize. Later, V.T. asked Nicks for a ride home and grew upset when Nicks refused. Nicks testified that he did not want to drive her home because he had been drinking and was intoxicated. V.T. then called various family members and told them that Nicks was “holding her against her will” and “holding her hostage.” Nicks testified that because V.T. was so upset he eventually agreed to give her a ride home.

Nicks and M.G. both said that during the ride home V.T. became physically violent and began striking Nicks. This led Nicks to pull over to the side of the road and force V.T. to get out of his vehicle. Nicks also got out of the vehicle and, after he did so, V.T. continued to strike him. Nicks shoved V.T., causing her to fall over on the ground. Nicks then left the scene and V.T. had to walk the remaining six or seven blocks to her home.

The foregoing incident led to a confrontation on the day before the shooting between Nicks and S.H., who was V.T.'s boyfriend. S.H. was upset with Nicks because of the earlier altercation between Nicks and V.T. On the day in question, Nicks was driving past the Hollis home when S.H. recognized Nicks's vehicle. Although S.H. had never met Nicks, he went outside and told Nicks he had “a couple of questions,” so Nicks parked his vehicle and got out. S.H. testified that when he went outside after seeing Nicks's vehicle, it was to “probably fight” Nicks. According to T.H., who witnessed the incident, Nicks responded to S.H.'s inquiries by acting in a threatening manner. S.H. then backed away and went back inside the Hollis home. According to S.H., Nicks said, “I don't play no games, you little boy,” and acted as if he had a gun. No witness actually saw a weapon.

S.H. testified that this incident happened at night, but T.H. testified it was during the daytime. The nature, duration, and lighting during this confrontation are significant because the incident was the only interaction between S.H. and Nicks before the shooting of Hollis and her daughter, and the interaction later served as the sole basis for S.H. to testify that he knew who Nicks was and saw him fleeing the scene of the shooting.

On the evening of March 1, a few hours before the shooting, a group of eight individuals, including T.H., S.H., and several friends, went to M.G.'s room at the Brooklyn Center hotel. The stated purpose of this visit was to find a man named Gari and physically attack him due to an unrelated dispute. The group did not know that Nicks sometimes stayed with M.G. at the hotel and that Nicks kept several of his belongings there. After arriving at the hotel, T.H. called M.G. and demanded to be allowed to enter her room. M.G. allowed the group into her room and their subsequent search of the room did not result in finding Gari. Nevertheless, members of the group stole a cellphone, laptop, and some clothing, and urinated on some other clothing in the room. The cellphone stolen by the group belonged to M.G. and the laptop belonged to Nicks. Both Nicks and M.G. testified that Nicks let M.G. use the laptop. By some accounts, the laptop was infected with several computer viruses and was barely operable. There is a dispute over how Nicks and M.G. used the laptop. Nicks and M.G. assert that the laptop had several photos and other personal data on it; the State asserts that the laptop was used by Nicks in his alleged prostitution business.

Following the incident at the hotel, M.G. called Johanna Hollis and told her what had happened. Hollis told M.G. that she “didn't want nothing to do with it,” so M.G. hung up and called Nicks. Nicks was upset when he heard the news about the theft and vandalism of his possessions. M.G. then repeatedly placed calls to members of the Hollis family in an attempt to get the items returned. One of the phones that M.G. placed calls to was her...