Opinion ID: 1611086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Attempted Simple Escape Charge

Text: While awaiting trial on the instant first degree murder charge, Reeves and another prisoner tried to escape from the Calcasieu Correctional Center. [166] Reeves was charged with attempted simple escape. [167] Ware was appointed to represent him on that charge. At that time, Cuccia and da Ponte represented Reeves on the first degree murder charge. Within the escape matter, Ware filed a motion on Reeves' behalf for the appointment of conflict-free counsel, asserting that the public defender's office had a conflict of interest in representing Reeves on the escape charge due to the fact that the public defender's office represented many of the inmates at the correctional center where Reeves was held. [168] A hearing was held on Ware's motion on February 4, 2004, and the transcript of that hearing within the escape prosecution was, for unknown reasons, placed into the record of the first degree murder case. [169] At the hearing, Ware asserted that Reeves' co-defendant on the escape charge, for a period of time, as well as other prisoners housed in the facility from which Reeves tried to escape (and thus potential witnesses at the trial on the escape charge), were clients of the public defender's office. [170] Ware asserted that, if new counsel were not appointed for Reeves, the public defender's office would be put in the position of cross-examining its present or former clients while defending Reeves on the escape charge. Ware urged caution in the court's ruling on the conflict motion, knowing that a conviction on the escape charge would likely be used in the penalty phase of Reeves' pending prosecution for first degree murder. Should the escape conviction be later reversed, there might be implications for a death sentence obtained with the introduction of evidence regarding the escape conviction. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the district court denied the motion, stating that any potential conflicts with specific witnesses could be dealt with at the trial of the escape charge. [171] During the trial on the escape charge, the state called as a witness inmate Kevin Courville, who was a former client of the public defender's office. Several attorneys in that office represented Courville on several different charges, including Ware. Ware again raised the issue of conflict of interest in the trial of the escape charge, complaining that he would have to cross-examine a former client. The district court found an actual conflict of interest, but allowed the trial on the escape charge to continue after Courville waived his attorney-client privilege. Reeves was convicted of attempted simple escape. On appeal, the court of appeal reversed Reeves' escape conviction and vacated the sentence. [172] The Third Circuit determined that, having found an actual conflict of interest, the trial court was required to take the proper steps to protect Reeves' right to effective assistance of counsel. The appellate court held that the conflict was not the witness' to waive; rather, the only proper recourse to protect Reeves' right to effective counsel was to appoint new counsel who did not have a conflict of interest with the state's witness. The court of appeal did not reverse Reeves' conviction for attempted simple escape until after his retrial for first degree murder.