Court Opinion

ID: 9953657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 16:09:25.211578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:39.634564
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                     No. 202PA22

                                Filed 22 March 2024

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

             v.
KENNETH LOUIS WALKER

      On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review a unanimous,

unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, No. COA21-535 (N.C. Ct. App. June 7,

2022), affirming an order entered on 8 April 2020 by Judge Paul C. Ridgeway in

Superior Court, Wake County, denying defendant’s motion for appropriate relief.

Heard in the Supreme Court on 1 November 2023.

      Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Benjamin Szany, Assistant Attorney
      General, for the State-appellee.

      Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by Katy Dickinson-Schultz, Assistant
      Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

      BARRINGER, Justice.

      In this case, we are tasked with determining whether the Court of Appeals

properly dispensed with defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim and

motion for appropriate relief (MAR). For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                I.    Background

      On 22 October 1999, defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and

sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, defendant’s attorney filed
                                   STATE V. WALKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Court of

Appeals found no error at trial.

      Over two decades later, defendant filed a pro se MAR on 1 April 2020.

Defendant raised, for the first time, that his trial counsel had not informed him of his

right to testify, denied him the opportunity to testify, and prevented him from

testifying despite defendant’s desire to do so. Defendant also claimed that the trial

court erred in limiting the testimony of defendant’s expert witness, a forensic

psychiatrist. Further, he alleged he had been denied effective assistance of appellate

counsel because his counsel filed an Anders brief. The trial court denied the MAR

because defendant had “not shown that he was unable, at the time of his appeal, to

raise the issues he now raises in his present [MAR].”

      The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s order to determine “whether

the findings of fact are supported by evidence, whether the findings of fact support

the conclusions of law, and whether the conclusions of law support the order entered

by the trial court.” State v. Walker, No. COA21-535, slip op. at 4 (N.C. Ct. App. June

7, 2022) (unpublished) (quoting State v. Peterson, 228 N.C. App. 339, 343 (2013)); see

also State v. Stevens, 305 N.C. 712, 720 (1982). However, when it recounted the

standard of review for an MAR, the Court of Appeals failed to state that review is “in

the light most favorable to [defendant],” which was first established in an opinion of

this Court published in August 2021. See State v. Allen, 378 N.C. 286, 296 (2021).

                                           -2-
                                   STATE V. WALKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

                            II.   Standard of Review

      Questions of law are reviewed de novo. State v. Thomsen, 369 N.C. 22, 24

(2016). In Allen, this Court established that the factual allegations contained in a

defendant’s MAR should be reviewed “in the light most favorable to [defendant].” 378

N.C. at 296. Under Allen, for the first time in our jurisprudential history, MARs were

to be read in the light most favorable to defendants. We now return to the standard

of review which existed prior to Allen—that of statutory review pursuant to N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-1420(c). Id. at 324 (Berger, J., dissenting).

      Reviewing a defendant’s asserted grounds for relief in the light most favorable

to defendant is a departure from this Court’s longstanding standard of review. See,

e.g., State v. McHone, 348 N.C. 254 (1998); State v. Stevens, 305 N.C. 712 (1982);

Branch v. State, 269 N.C. 642 (1967); State v. Graves, 251 N.C. 550 (1960); Miller v.

State, 237 N.C. 29, cert. denied, 345 U.S. 930 (1953). The mere fact that some ground

for relief is asserted does not entitle defendant to a hearing or to present evidence.

McHone, 348 N.C. at 256. An MAR court need not conduct an evidentiary hearing if

a defendant’s MAR offers insufficient evidence to support his claim or only asserts

general allegations and speculation. N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420 (2023); see State v. Harris,

338 N.C. 129, 143 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1100 (1995).

      Although the dissent argues that we are overruling a standard which Allen did

not prescribe, the Court of Appeals has expressed uncertainty on how to approach

Allen. In State v. Ballard, for example, the concurrence voiced concern over the “novel

                                           -3-
                                    STATE V. WALKER

                                    Opinion of the Court

precedent set out in Allen.” 283 N.C. App. 236, 250 (2022) (Griffin, J., concurring).

The concurrence further wrote that Allen is not supported by our jurisprudence nor

the text of the North Carolina General Statutes. Id. The holding in Allen “clearly

frustrates the plain language of the statute, takes away discretion from our trial

judges, and shows a need for our Supreme Court to revisit its holding.” Id. Despite

the arguments made by our dissenting colleagues, the Court of Appeals has

highlighted the continuing issues caused by Allen. We now correct these issues.

      In the present case, defendant made ineffective assistance of counsel

allegations against both his trial and appellate counsel. The right to effective

assistance of counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. State v. Braswell, 312 N.C. 553, 561 (1985). When asserting that

counsel is ineffective, defendant must show that their counsel fell “below an objective

standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984). To

do so, defendant must first show that “counsel made errors so serious that counsel

was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth

Amendment.” Id. at 687. Second, defendant must show that “counsel’s errors were so

serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Id.

“Thus, both deficient performance and prejudice are required for a successful

ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” State v. Todd, 369 N.C. 707, 711 (2017).

                                  III.    Analysis

      Defendant argues that his trial counsel refused to allow him to testify, despite

                                            -4-
                                  STATE V. WALKER

                                  Opinion of the Court

his desire to testify. However, the record does not support defendant’s argument.

Defendant knew of his right to testify, as evidenced by the trial court’s colloquy with

defendant.

                   THE COURT: [Defendant], do you understand, sir,
             you have the right to remain silent, you don’t need to make
             any statement at this point.

                    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                    THE COURT: And you understand that you’re
             charged here today with first degree murder allegedly
             occurring on November 14, 1998, in which you were
             charged with malice . . . [a]forethought, premeditation,
             murdering one Stephanie V. Keith. Do you understand that
             you’re charged with that, sir?

                    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                  THE COURT: State is calling this as a first degree
             murder case.

                    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                    THE COURT: Your attorneys advised me, sir, that
             they don’t intend to contest certain aspects of that charge;
             that is to say they anticipate that they would not contest
             that decedent Ms. Keith was, in fact, shot by you and that
             she died as a result thereof. Have they discussed that with
             you prior to trial?

                    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                   THE COURT: And you understand that they don’t
             want to contest those two aspects on your behalf.

                    THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                    THE COURT: That is, they’re not pleading guilty to
             any particular offense at this point on your behalf, but they
             don’t intend to contest the fact that she was shot and that

                                          -5-
                                    STATE V. WALKER

                                    Opinion of the Court

               you were the person that shot her. Have they discussed
               that with you, sir?

                     THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                     THE COURT: Have you given them your specific
               permission to do that during the course of the trial?

                     THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                      THE COURT: Any other questions or concerns about
               that issue at this point?

                     THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.

                     THE COURT: All right. Be seated.

         Contrary to his arguments to this Court, defendant stated, through counsel, to

the trial court that he “ha[d] not made a decision yet on whether [he] will testify or

not.” At no point during trial did defendant indicate he wished to testify.

         The only suggestion that defendant wished to testify is contained within

defendant’s MAR. Furthermore, nothing in the record supports defendant’s

argument. Defendant has not shown that he intended to testify at trial nor that his

trial counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden. The Court of Appeals correctly

determined that defendant’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim is without

merit.

         Defendant further contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for

failing to challenge the trial court’s limitation on defendant’s forensic psychologist

expert witness, Dr. Holly Rogers. In advancing this argument, defendant filed a

                                            -6-
                                   STATE V. WALKER

                                    Opinion of the Court

Motion to Take Judicial Notice, requesting this Court take judicial notice of the prior

appellate filings in his case. Judicial notice of the appellate filings is proper, and

therefore, defendant’s motion is allowed. See In re McLean Trucking Co., 285 N.C.

552, 557 (1974); N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 201 (2023).

      An expert may not “testify to a particular legal conclusion or that a legal

standard has or has not been met.” State v. Fisher, 336 N.C. 684, 703–04 (1994). The

trial court’s ruling on whether expert testimony shall be admitted “will not be

reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” E.g., State v. McGrady,

368 N.C. 880, 893 (2016) (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458

(2004)).

      In this case, the trial court prohibited Dr. Rogers from using legal terminology

in her testimony. See Fisher, 336 N.C. at 703–04. However, the trial court allowed

Dr. Rogers to testify about defendant’s

             major depressive disorder, that he was vulnerable to
             intense emotion and loss of control. And that because of
             this depressive disorder . . . it [a]ffected his ability to carry
             out or make plans to commit murder, or it inhibited his
             ability to reflect on his actions in a meaningful way. And
             . . . she can testify that it contributed to or [a]ffected his
             ability to create a plan or scheme to commit or carry out a
             murder.

The trial court’s limitations on Dr. Rogers’ testimony were permissible, as it

restricted her use of legal terminology. Accordingly, defendant’s MAR did not

demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion in limiting Dr. Rogers’ testimony.

As such, defendant’s appellate counsel was not deficient and did not prejudice

                                            -7-
                                  STATE V. WALKER

                                  Opinion of the Court

defendant by failing to raise the issue on appeal. Thus, defendant’s allegations of

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are without merit.

                               IV.    Conclusion

      The Court of Appeals properly dispensed with defendant’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claims and MAR. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals’

opinion.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          -8-
                                   STATE V. WALKER

                                   Berger, J., concurring

      Justice BERGER concurring.

      I concur in the majority opinion but write separately because the question

arises here whether we should follow the plain language of the post-conviction

statutes and our precedent in State v. McHone, 348 N.C. 254 (1998), or the recently

decided case of State v. Allen, 378 N.C. 286 (2021).

      This Court has long understood the extent to which prior decisions may bind

future courts. While some distinction has been made for cases involving property and

contractual rights not relevant here, in State v. Ballance, 299 N.C. 764 (1949), we

stated that

              [i]n adjudicating a case, a court is not concerned with what
              the law ought to be, but its function is to declare what the
              law is. Moreover, the law must be characterized by stability
              if men are to resort to it for rules of conduct. These
              considerations have brought forth the salutary doctrine of
              stare decisis which proclaims, in effect, that where a
              principle of law has become settled by a series of decisions,
              it is binding on the courts and should be followed in similar
              cases.

Id. 767 (second emphasis added).

      Justice Ervin authored the opinion for the Court in Ballance, and he noted that

precedential value may be lacking where this Court is “confronted by a single case

which is much weakened as an authoritative precedent by a [strong and well-

reasoned] dissenting opinion.” Id., See also Sidney Spitzer & Co. v. Commissioners of

Franklin Cnty., 188 N.C. 30, 123 (1924) (when the Court is “presented with a single

                                            -9-
                                  STATE V. WALKER

                                  Berger, J., concurring

decision, which we believe to have been inadvisedly made, it is incumbent on us to

overrule it, if we entertain a different opinion.”) (cleaned up) (emphasis added). Put

another way, an isolated holding may be persuasive, but it is not binding, especially

when met with a sound dissent. Such is the case here.

      My dissent in State v. Allen, 378 N.C. 286 (2021), joined by two of my

colleagues, addressed several very real concerns with the Court’s reasoning in that

case. The Court in Allen set its thumb upon the scales when it declared for the first

time that post-conviction evidentiary matters must be viewed in the light most

favorable to the defendant. Id. at 296. With this novel approach, the majority

gratuitously injected merit into any post-conviction claim that a defendant could

imagine. After all, a defendant’s factual assertions are deemed by Allen to be true in

every circumstance.

      But Allen is an isolated opinion which is not grounded in the plain language of

our post-conviction statutes or our case law interpreting the same. Point after point

in the dissent was met with silence from the majority, save and except an assertion

in a footnote concerning the procedural posture in State v. McHone 348 N.C. 254

(1998), and a comment in another footnote concerning the experience level of Allen’s

trial counsel. Id. at 297, n. 5, 301 n. 6. The conspicuous absence of a cogent rebuttal

underscores the soundness of the positions taken in my dissent.

      Now, however, it is suggested that the Court’s application of the plain language

of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420 and our precedent in McHone is somehow improper. But, as

                                          -10-
                                 STATE V. WALKER

                                 Berger, J., concurring

Justice Ervin emphasized, “the doctrine of stare decisis will not be applied in any

event to preserve and perpetuate error and grievous wrong.” Ballance at 229 N.C. at

767. See also Patterson v. McCormick, 177 N.C. 448 (1919) (“The rule of stare decisis

cannot be applied to perpetuate error.”).       Allen was a grievous wrong, and we

appropriately correct course with our opinion today.

                                         -11-
                                    STATE V. WALKER

                     Earls, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

      Justice EARLS concurring in part and dissenting in part.

      I agree with the Court that Mr. Walker’s motion for appropriate relief (MAR)

lacked the factual support required for an evidentiary hearing. I disagree, however,

with the majority’s purported and gratuitous reversal of State v. Allen, 378 N.C. 286

(2021), in discussing the standard of review.

      Despite the majority’s framing, Allen was not some ahistorical aberration from

long-settled law. Just the opposite. In that case, this Court interpreted N.C.G.S.

§ 15A-1420 to explain when an MAR court must hold an evidentiary hearing. Under

that statute, a defendant who files an “MAR within the appropriate time period ‘is

entitled to a hearing on questions of law or fact arising from the motion and any

supporting or opposing information presented unless the court determines that the

motion is without merit.’ ” Allen, 378 N.C. at 296 (quoting N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c)(1)

(2019)). The question for the court is “whether an evidentiary hearing is required to

resolve questions of fact.” Id. (cleaned up); see N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c)(1) (2023). That

is because a court must decide an MAR “without an evidentiary hearing,” when the

“motion and supporting and opposing information” raise “only questions of law.”

Allen, 378 N.C. at 296 (cleaned up). By contrast, if the “court cannot rule upon the

motion without the hearing of evidence,” it must hold that hearing and find facts.

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c)(4) (2023).

      In construing those provisions, Allen did not sail in uncharted waters. This

                                            -12-
                                     STATE V. WALKER

                      Earls, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

Court’s decision in State v. McHone, 348 N.C. 254 (1998)—the very case the majority

cites—applied the statute to evidentiary hearings:

             Under subsection (c)(4), read in pari materia with
             subsections (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), an evidentiary hearing
             is required unless the motion presents assertions of fact
             which will entitle the defendant to no relief even if resolved
             in his favor . . . .

Id. at 258 (second emphasis added).

      Allen thus explained that MAR courts “are obligated to conduct an evidentiary

hearing to resolve any disputed facts unless” the motion presents assertions of fact

which will entitle the defendant to no relief even if resolved in his favor. Allen, 378

N.C. at 296 (citing McHone, 348 N.C. at 257). So when a court summarily dismisses

an MAR without a hearing, we review that decision by asking whether the evidence

in the record and MAR—“considered in the light most favorable to [the defendant]”—

would “if ultimately proven true, entitle him to relief.” Id. (citing McHone, 348 N.C.

at 258). Put another way, an evidentiary hearing is required if an MAR’s “factual

allegations would entitle the defendant to relief if true” and the “filings provide some

evidentiary basis for the allegations.” Id. at 297. In that case, a court must “determine

the facts necessary to resolve the claim on its merits.” Id.

      Rather than confront Allen head-on, the majority constructs a strawman. As

the majority tells it, that decision required MAR courts to review “a defendant’s

asserted grounds for relief in the light most favorable to defendant.” Allen, however,

did no such thing. As explained above, Allen examined when an evidentiary hearing

                                             -13-
                                     STATE V. WALKER

                      Earls, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

is required to resolve an MAR. We did not prescribe how courts should weigh a

defendant’s “asserted grounds for relief,” as the majority would have it. Allen instead

focused attention on the “evidence contained in the record and presented in [the

defendant’s] MAR.” Allen, 378 N.C. at 296. Only those factual allegations are viewed

in the defendant’s favor and only “when making the initial determination as to

whether the facts alleged by the defendant would entitle the defendant to relief if

proven true.” Id. at 297 n.4. In fact, Allen took pains to explain its scope, cautioning

that “[n]othing in this opinion alters the undisputed premise that the defendant

ultimately bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the

existence of the asserted grounds for relief.” Id. (cleaned up). The majority thus

criticizes Allen for something it did not say and overrules a standard Allen did not

prescribe. And in all events, Allen did not work the sea change the majority wrings

from it or conjure up a novel standard. Instead, it moored its holding in the text of

Section 15A-1420 and our precedent interpreting it. That remains true, even if the

dissent in that case disagreed.

      Reversing our precedent is also gratuitous. Here, the parties did not dispute

Allen’s vitality or ask us to revisit it. And overturning that decision is as unnecessary

as it is unexamined. The Court unanimously agrees that Mr. Walker’s MAR lacks the

evidentiary support needed for a hearing. Whether or not we view the evidence in Mr.

Walker’s favor, the outcome is the same. For that reason, I see no need to reach out,

misrepresent a precedent, and then needlessly reverse it. Indeed, that holding is mere

                                             -14-
                                    STATE V. WALKER

                     Earls, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part

dicta and should be treated as such.

      Justice RIGGS joins in this concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion.

                                            -15-