TOPEKA—The Supreme Court today remanded a Topeka capital murder case for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel for among other things volunteering to the jury that the defendant had a prior manslaughter conviction and repeatedly referring to his client as a "professional drug dealer" and "shooter of people."
The murder trial of Phillip D. Cheatham Jr. arose from the December 2003 shooting deaths of Annette Roberson and Gloria Jones and the severe wounding of Annetta Thomas at a Topeka residence. Following trial, the state agreed with the appellate defender that Cheatham received ineffective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase of the proceeding, but disputed that he received ineffective assistance during the guilt phase.
Following a previous remand in the appeal process, the Shawnee County District Court reversed the death penalty, based on the state's stipulation that the penalty phase was handled improperly, and said in its ruling that Cheatham's attorney, Ira Dennis Hawver, "had no business taking on a death penalty case."
Justice Dan Biles, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court said, "But despite those findings, the district court upheld Cheatham's convictions. We hold that trial counsel's representation denied Cheatham the fair trial he is guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions.
"Specifically, we hold that counsel's performance was deficient in several respects, which were most seriously problematic when he volunteered to the jury that Cheatham had a prior voluntary manslaughter conviction and referred repeatedly to his client as a 'professional drug dealer' and 'shooter of people.' This denied Cheatham his right to a fair trial," Biles wrote for the Court.
"We hold further that under the circumstances in this case, counsel's fee arrangement created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected the adequacy of Cheatham's defense. We reverse his convictions and remand the case for a new trial."
The Court noted the fee arrangement gave Hawver an incentive not to prepare adequately for Cheatham's trial and to reject offers by the Board of Indigents Defense Services to furnish co-counsel, investigators, consultants, and expert witnesses to assist in defense efforts. The Court characterized the 200 hours that Hawver spent on Cheatham's case as "appallingly low for a death penalty defense and even more stunning when all but 60 of those hours, as Hawver testified, were spent in trial."