Appeal denied officer slayer

MAT-SU -- An appeal challenging rulings from Palmer Superior Court filed by Kim Michael Cook was denied last week by the Alaska Court of Appeals.

Cook, convicted in October 2000 of first-degree murder for shooting a Palmer police officer to death during a welfare check, appealed his conviction contending that the court erred in granting his request to represent himself during the trial. Cook's appeal also challenges the court's decision to allow evidence that showed Cook had a history of antagonism toward police.

Cook was sentenced in January 2001 to 99 years in prison for the shooting death of Palmer Police Officer James Rowland Jr., after Rowland performed a welfare check on Cook, who was reportedly sleeping in his truck on a ramp leading to the Palmer Carrs grocery store parking lot on May 15, 1999.

During the murder trial, Cook was granted permission to lead his own defense team in representing himself. According to court transcripts, Cook did not believe he was being fairly represented by the public defenders working on his behalf. When Dillingham Superior Court Judge Fred Torrisi, who presided over the trial in court in Palmer, asked Cook if he wanted to represent himself, Cook said not exactly.

"I would like [to have] competent counsel," Cook told Torrisi. "But since I won't be appointed competent counsel, then the next alternative is to represent myself."

When Torrisi told Cook at the trial he could represent himself, and could rely on his court-appointed public defenders for advice, he indicated it may limit Cook's future appeal possibilities.

"You've been here, you know where the trial is going. You can't argue later the attorneys didn't properly represent you," Torrisi said at the time. "You might have ineffective assistance, I just don't see it."

Cook, who had already apparently mulled appeal possibilities, said he intended to use ineffective counsel as an appeal point.

"Otherwise I wouldn't be representing myself," Cook said.

In the appeal, Cook states that he never fully expressed a desire to represent himself; only that he felt he should do so because he was "convinced that his two public defenders were incompetent and because he could not get another court-appointed attorney to replace those public defenders."

During the trial, Torrisi said he saw no evidence that Cook's attorneys were incompetent and that, in the absence of such proof, Cook had no right to demand another court-appointed attorney. He also tried to dissuade Cook from representing himself, outlining the difficulties of building a case and the complexities of cross-examinations.

"There are people who get through law school and still can't do [what you propose to do]," Torrisi said. "It's not an easy skill to ask questions, especially to cross-examine, do you understand [that]?"

Cook affirmed that he understood.

In the appeal, Appellate Judge David Mannheimer wrote that, "within the range of choices that were legally available, Cook's decision was unequivocal. There was no ambiguity in Cook's waiver of his right to counsel."

In the appeal, Cook also charged that he based his request to waive counsel on the expectation that the public defenders would be giving him advice along the way. He said he got no such advice -- and, four days after waiving his right to counsel, lodged such a complaint with the judge. The appellate court did not agree.

"But the record indicates otherwise," Mannheimer wrote, citing several instances in the court records in which "whispered conversations" are noted, linked to discussions between Cook and his public defenders. At some points, the whispered discussions led to Cook rephrasing questions and objections.

The court also ruled that evidence that demonstrated a history of hostility toward police was rightfully included in the trial, despite an argument by Cook that it should have been omitted.

Cook also challenged the inclusion of testimony from Ionna Cook, his step-mother, stating that it should have been considered "stale" because her last conversation with Cook had taken place five years prior to the trial. The appellate court denied the charge, stating that "staleness" is not determined simply by an elapse of time.

"Given Mrs. Cook's testimony that Cook had repeatedly mentioned his hostility toward the police, and that his animosity appeared to grow stronger over the years, we believe Ionna Cook's testimony remained probative," Mannheimer wrote.

Calls to Cook's attorney, Nancy Shaw, and to Assistant Attorney General Ken Diemer were not returned as of press time.

Cook is serving out his sentence at Florence Arizona State Prison, and will be eligible for parole in 2034.

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com