Cook v. State
2013 Alas. LEXIS 154
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Cook was charged with first-degree murder after a police officer was killed. The officer’s estate sued Cook in civil court, and after Cook failed to answer, a default judgment was entered and his assets were frozen to collect the civil judgment.
- Cook sought to set aside the default; the superior court denied, preventing him from hiring private counsel in the criminal case where a public defender was appointed.
- Cook was convicted of first-degree murder in the criminal case, and that conviction was upheld on direct appeal.
- About two years later, the court of appeals acknowledged error in the civil case for not setting aside the default, but did not recognize a Sixth Amendment basis for relief in the criminal case.
- Cook pursued post-conviction relief claiming a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice; Judge Smith granted relief, but the court of appeals reversed.
- The central question presented is whether the civil case ruling constitutes a new fact under AS 12.72.010(4) requiring vacation of the criminal conviction in the interest of justice, and the petition for hearing was ultimately dismissed as improvidently granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether civil default affecting funds violates Sixth Amendment rights | Cook contends the civil default deprived him of funds to hire counsel of his choice | State contends collateral civil effects do not violate the Sixth Amendment | No Sixth Amendment violation found |
| Whether the civil-court ruling required balancing Cook's rights in the parallel criminal case | Cook argues Armstrong-type balancing was required | State argues no sua sponte balancing required in this context | Majority declines to adopt such balancing as a general rule in this context |
| Whether Rowland constitutes a new material fact warranting vacation | Cook asserts Rowland’s reversal is a new fact that requires relief | State disputes that this is a new material fact under AS 12.72.010(4) | Petition for hearing dismissed; no ruling on vacation based on that fact in the majority |
| Remedy for error in collateral civil/criminal proceedings | Cook seeks new trial due to structural error | State argues structural-error doctrine does not mandate retrial here | Petition for hearing dismissed as improvidently granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) (asset forfeiture does not violate Sixth Amendment rights; government interest outweighed defendant’s right to use funds for counsel)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) ( Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice includes substantial protections; not easily defeated by collateral actions)
- Armstrong v. Tanaka, 228 P.3d 79 (Alaska 2010) (balancing of interests required when civil proceedings affect rights in parallel criminal proceedings)
- Rowland, Cook v., 49 P.3d 262 (Alaska 2002) (default judgment error; later reversed for excusable neglect; collateral effects discussed in later proceedings)