Opinion ID: 2654645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plea Taking

Text: [¶9] On June 28, 2012, Noel appeared before the District Court to enter his change of plea, at which time he was re-arraigned on the amended charges. Defense counsel and the prosecutor explained to the court the terms of the written plea agreement, stating: Mr. Noel understands this is a recommended plea agreement, first of all, which means the Court is not bound by any of the terms of the plea agreement. Mr. Noel will plead to both counts, attempted manslaughter. The agreement goes on to state that the defendant is free to argue for any sentence, so long as it’s not less than five and a half years and no more than 20 and - - on both counts; and that that argument will include a recommendation for consecutive terms. Both parties are free to argue from any police reports and law enforcement reports and the law. I will let the Court know now - - seems like a good time to say it - - the parties anticipate a sentencing in this matter that may run all day. . . . Other than that, Your Honor, that’s pretty much the meat of the agreement. He will also give a factual basis, of course, that will comply with the two counts in the Amended Information. ... The State is free to argue up to the maximum sentence on each count to run consecutively. 4 [¶10] The District Court then confirmed with Noel that he understood the agreement, verifying that Noel had signed the plea agreement and confirming that Noel entered the agreement voluntarily. Noel pleaded guilty to both amended charges, and the court asked Noel to provide a factual basis for his pleas, in response to which Noel testified, in pertinent part: I proceeded to the door to answer it with the 9-millimeter handgun in my right hand, which was loaded with a round in the chamber, fully loaded. .... I remember seeing what appeared to be a green laser pointer. I remember feeling excruciating pain and shots. I - - it happened extremely quick. The only thing I really remember from the point of getting - - I actually had been Tased - - that’s not what I thought initially though - - was I was falling backwards. I was shooting a gun in the direction of the two sheriff’s deputies. I believe that I had fired around five to seven shots hitting the ground. My first conscious thought was, oh, my God. I threw the gun away. I yelled out to the deputies that I was done, that I was over. It happened so fast that it just didn’t seem real. I couldn’t believe what had happened. .... THE COURT: All right. Are you telling me that you get Tased, and you sort of fall backwards, and then the firearm goes off; or was it discharged while you recall still standing? THE DEFENDANT: From what I remember is from when I got hit, that yes, it discharged and went off, is what I remember. I believe evidence would show otherwise. Although from my memory, all I remember is excruciating pain from the Taser. . . . I remember falling backwards and firing the gun. It just happened so quickly, Your Honor. I wish I could explain more of the exact details that had 5 happened in that short period of time. You know, 15 [shots] were fired, and one of the deputies was hit. .... THE COURT: I think what you told me, if I’m following what you’ve said, is you weren’t’ really trying to kill either Deputy [Walkma] or Deputy Yocum. It is just that when you got Tased, something happened to cause you to pull the trigger; and the gun discharged. THE DEFENDANT: That’s correct, Your Honor. .... THE DEFENDANT: I guess what maybe I ought to explain is that, you know, initially when I had been Tased, there was absolutely no intent whatsoever. Although firing 15 rounds when I was falling back, I did fire the gun in the direction of the deputies, which I believe - - you know, it’s hard for me to think that I would have done that. But it does seem to show that I had intent to harm or kill the deputies when I fired back in their direction. There’s something that happened in my mind that, you know, it just - - it happened very quickly. I don’t - - I just don’t like to think that I could - - you know, if it were one or two rounds, that would make sense that it were accidental, but 15 I think shows intent to kill. [PUBLIC DEFENDER]: Your Honor, if I may? The evidence would show that there were 14 bullet holes on Mr. Noel’s side of the door. There were 15 rounds fired. It is our belief that probably the first round is the one that hit Officer [Walkma], while Officer [Walkma’s] police statement is that the gun had cleared the door at the time that he saw a flash. So I think that would corroborate that. There are four more bullets that are - - as the door was being pushed open or pulled open, I don’t know which - - but they’re at a very severe steep angle to the door. But they are all head high, and they’re contact shots. The muzzle of the gun was clearly against the door, the door - - the hotel door. 6 So it has an automatic closure. So when Officer - - or Deputy [Walkma] and Yocum went in opposite directions, the door was closing at that point. After that, Mr. Noel continued to fire through the door. And I think the State would be able to prove logically that the main pattern is in the middle of the door. But there are also bullet holes going off in the different angles which would indicate - - I think at trial they could make a pretty good argument that as the officers were running, he was aiming through the wall and through the door. That - - at that point, I don’t think there’s any doubt, even if the person was - - a complete accident - - that’s one that Mr. Noel really can’t remember because he was being Tased at the time. I think he was in surprise. But after that, then the continuation I think is what the State and the Defense have agreed would be voluntary - - attempted voluntary manslaughter. So I don’t think the first bullet really matters that much, other than I think that’s the one that hit Deputy [Walkma], unfortunately. So I think the remainder, even if - - and I think we can count that one. But even if we don’t, we still have 14 bullets shot. ... And just one more thing. If the Court is struggling with a factual basis, I would point out that the jury instruction states that the heat of passion is when an ordinarily reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances as those in question which would cause him to act rashly, without reflection or deliberation. And I think that’s exactly what the facts given to the Court show. He acted rashly, without reflection, without deliberation, and continued through the process of emptying the clip. ... [PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: . . . The State would also like to add that when the deputies knocked on the door, Mr. Noel answered. They were commanding him to drop his gun. They were yelling at him over and over again. And at one 7 point, he said “Fuck you.” They continued to yell at him. And finally, they had to Tase him. He was angry with the officers - - of with the deputies from the beginning of the incident. He wanted them to go away. He would not comply. They continued to yell, and then he was Tased. And, Your Honor, that - - all of those factors together I think shows the heat of passion. Additionally, at this point, I think it’s important to note that law enforcement did not return fire. And the evidence would indicate that Mr. Noel was firing shots in the direction of both deputies, which again I think shows intent. And also, the evidence would show he was not falling backwards, but he was actually retreating into the room to protect himself, to get cover in case they did fire back. The District Court ultimately concluded that Noel was competent to enter his guilty pleas, which were knowingly and voluntarily made with a full understanding of the consequences. The court accepted the pleas “under the Alford and Berry lines of cases,” determining that the State could have proven the elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.