State v. Cheatham, 292 P.3d 318

Cheatham was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in a Topeka shooting case involving two deceased victims and a third wounded; direct appeal argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel due to performance and conflicts of interest.
The appellate court bifurcated ineffective assistance claims from other errors and remanded for an evidentiary Van Cleave hearing; the Van Cleave court reversed the death sentence for penalty-phase errors and ordered a new sentencing trial.
During Van Cleave, the State conceded ineffectiveness in the penalty phase but contested guilt-phase ineffectiveness; the Van Cleave court found trial counsel deficient in several areas but still upheld guilt-phase convictions, while reversing penalty-phase and ordering new proceedings.
Cheatham’s counsel Hawver was a non-death-qualified private attorney with a small private practice, no prior capital trial experience, and no written fee agreement; he did not obtain BIDS funding nor consult with indices of indigent defense resources.
Cheatham’s trial included introducing his prior voluntary manslaughter conviction to the jury, after the State had offered to stipulate to a prior felony for firearm purposes; the fee arrangement with Hawver created a claimed conflict of interest; Hawver’s performance and strategy were scrutinized for prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance—deficient performance standard	Cheatham	Cheatham	Guilty-phase deficient performance shown; prejudice proven.
Introduction of prior manslaughter conviction	Cheatham	State	Prejudicial error; invalid strategy; requires new trial.
Conflict of interest from fee arrangement	Cheatham	Hawver	Conflict existed and adversely affected representation; reversal required.
Alibi notice deficiency	Cheatham	State	Defect but not prejudicial given other evidence; still contributes to overall error.
ABA Guidelines as measure of performance	Cheatham	State	ABA guidelines are guides, not constitutional controls; deficiency analyzed under Strickland.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (established the two-prong deficient performance/prejudice standard)
Gonzales v. State, 289 Kan. 351 (Kan. 2009) (adoption of Strickland standard in Kansas)
Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618 (Kan. 2009) (conflict of interest and performance analysis)
Galaviz v. State, 296 Kan. 168 (Kan. 2012) (discussed conflict-of-interest framework and adverse-effect standard)
Logan v. State, 236 Kan. 79 (Kan. 1984) (misinformation by counsel harming credibility (adjusting prior conviction testimony))
Rice v. State, 261 Kan. 567 (Kan. 1997) (inadmissibility and strategic decision making regarding testimony)
Winter v. State, 210 Kan. 597 (Kan. 1972) (professional decisions reside with counsel; control over trial strategy)
Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (no special prejudice required when counsel absent a meaningful adversarial testing)
Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (conflict-of-interest framework; applicability to successive representations)
Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 (Kan. 2003) (applies Strickland to Kansas ineffective-assistance claims)