De Anthony Malik Harris v. State of Alaska

In the Court of Appeals of the State of Alaska
De Anthony Malik Harris,
Appellant,
v.
State of Alaska,
Appellee.
Court of Appeals No. A-13950
Order
Motion for Release Prior to Judgment
Date of Order: 4/21/2022
Trial Court Case No. 3AN-16-09996CR
Before: Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison, Judges.
De Anthony Malik Harris appeals from the bail order issued in this case on
January 4, 2022. This is the second time this case is before us on a bail appeal.
As we noted in our last order, Harris is charged, as principal or accomplice,
with several counts of first- and second-degree murder and one count of first-degree
robbery in connection with the shooting deaths of Christopher and Danielle Brooks in
2016.1 According to the complaint, Harris and three other men entered the Brooks’s
residence with shirts covering their faces, intending to steal drugs and money. During
a struggle with Christopher Brooks, one of the men shot and killed the couple while their
young child was in the home.2
In his first bail appeal, Harris challenged the superior court’s rejection of
one of his two proposed third-party custodians. (The court approved the other proposed
custodian.) Harris also challenged the superior court’s refusal to reconsider his monetary
bail amount — which had been set at a $250,000 cash performance bond and a $250,000
1 See Harris v. State, 2021 WL 5029385, at *1 (Alaska App. Oct. 28, 2021)
(unpublished bail order).
2 Id.

Harris v. State, File No. A-13950
April 21, 2022 - p. 2
cash or corporate appearance bond. Harris had requested a reduction to a $5,000 cash
performance bond, plus an unsecured appearance bond.
Following our review of the record, we remanded Harris’s case to the
superior court for reconsideration of the proposed custodian.3 Because a court must
re-assess monetary bail in light of the bail conditions as a whole upon approval of an
appropriate third-party custodian, we did not directly address Harris’s arguments
regarding his monetary bail.4
However, we directed the court to re-assess Harris’s monetary proposal on
remand.5 We noted that, in evaluating whether Harris’s bail conditions (including any
monetary conditions) were the “least restrictive” means to reasonably ensure his
appearance and protection of the community, the court was required to consider his
ability to pay.6 We further stated that if, on remand, “the court determine[d] that the
monetary bail should be set above [Harris’s] ability to pay, the court [was required to]
provide case-specific reasons for why this amount of monetary bail [was] necessary in
addition to whatever other supervision or protective measures” were in place.7
On remand, the court approved the previously denied third-party custodian.
Additionally, the court heard arguments from both parties about the proper amount of
3 See id. at *2.
4 Id. at *3.
5 Id. at *3-4. We noted that the bail hearing under appeal appeared to have been
Harris’s first bail hearing, and thus, the court was required to independently assess Harris’s
monetary bail. Id. at *3 (citing Torgerson v. State, 444 P.3d 235, 238 (Alaska App. 2019)).
6 Id. (citing AS 12.30.011(b)-(c)).
7 Id.

Harris v. State, File No. A-13950
April 21, 2022 - p. 3
monetary bail. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated that it would take the
question of monetary bail under advisement.
The court subsequently issued a written order addressing Harris’s monetary
bail request. The court acknowledged, based on the testimony of Harris and his family
members at the bail hearing, that imposing a bail higher than the $5,000 cash
performance bond proposed by Harris appeared to be outside his ability to pay.8 But the
court found that Harris’s ability to pay was outweighed by the nature and circumstances
of the charges and the strength of the evidence against Harris.9 In particular, the court
found that the information before it indicated that the shootings resulted from a planned
robbery in which Harris was alleged to have brought a firearm — and that the shootings
occurred while the victims’ young child was in the residence. The court found that
Harris’s involvement was strongly supported by jail phone calls in which he admitted he
was at the residence when the crimes occurred.
The court acknowledged that Harris was nineteen years old at the time of
the shootings and has no criminal record. The court therefore significantly reduced
Harris’s bail, from a $250,000 cash performance bond and a $250,000 cash or corporate
appearance bond to a $100,000 cash performance bond and a $50,000 cash or corporate
appearance bond. But ultimately, the court concluded that, even in light of the bail
conditions as a whole, a high monetary bail was necessary to reasonably ensure Harris’s
appearance and the protection of the community.
8 See AS 12.30.011(c)(8) (including the “assets available to the [defendant] to meet
monetary conditions of release” as among the factors a court must consider when
determining conditions of release).
9 See AS 12.30.011(c)(1)-(2) (setting out “the nature and circumstances of the offense
charged” and “the weight of the evidence against the [defendant]” as two factors the court
must consider when determining conditions of release).

Harris v. State, File No. A-13950
April 21, 2022 - p. 4
Harris again appeals, challenging solely the monetary bail amount. He does
not dispute any of the superior court’s factual findings. Rather, Harris argues that the
court did not “properly evaluate the amount of monetary bail in light of the income and
assets available to Mr. Harris and his family members.” But Harris’s argument is largely
conclusory, and he does not specifically cite any legal error by the court.10
To the extent Harris is arguing that the court failed to account for the assets
available to Harris and his family, the record shows that the court did take testimony on
this issue and nonetheless found that a figure outside of Harris’s requested amount was
necessary to fulfill the dual purposes of bail. To the extent Harris is arguing that the
court erred in setting the particular amount of monetary bail, we are unable to find that
the court abused its discretion. The determination of appropriate bail conditions is in
large measure a discretionary function of the trial court. Thus, absent a legal error, we
review a trial court’s decision to impose a particular bail amount for an abuse of
discretion.11 Under this standard, an appellate court must uphold the trial court’s
10 Harris compares his case to our previous unpublished bail decisions in West v. State,
where we held that further inquiry into the financial resources available to West was required
on remand. See West v. State, 2014 WL 12973941 (Alaska App. Aug. 18, 2014)
(unpublished bail order); West v. State, 2014 WL 12969638 (Alaska App. Sept. 2, 2014)
(unpublished bail order). In particular, we noted that the superior court’s justification for
imposing a $500,000 cash or corporate bond on West, who was charged with second-degree
murder, rested on the as-yet “untested assumption that this amount will impose a significant
financial strain on West and her family, but that it will not be impossible to meet[.]” West,
2014 WL 12969638, at *2. But West is distinguishable from this case because, at this point,
the superior court has inquired into the assets available to Harris to meet the monetary
conditions of release.
11 AS 12.30.030(a).

Harris v. State, File No. A-13950
April 21, 2022 - p. 5
decision unless it was “arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or stemmed from
an improper motive.”12
While the monetary bail amount is on the high end and other judges might
reasonably have imposed a lower bail amount in light of the other protective measures
in place, we cannot find that the bail imposed in this double homicide case is manifestly
unreasonable. However, should Harris have new information that would warrant further
review of his bail conditions, we would encourage the superior court to re-evaluate the
need for the precise monetary amount in light of the other conditions imposed and any
change in circumstances.
The superior court’s bail order is AFFIRMED.
Entered at the direction of the Court.
Clerk of the Appellate Courts
________________________________
Joyce Marsh, Deputy Clerk
cc: Court of Appeals Judges
Distribution:
Email:
Weiner, Jason A., Court under Rule 12
Bartnitskaia, Lyubov K
12 See Wahl v. State, 441 P.3d 424, 430 (Alaska 2019) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).