Judge will decide if double murderer's lawyers acted properly f

January 27, 2006

MARY AMES/Frontiersman reporter

A Palmer Superior Court judge will have to decide whether appellate attorneys competently represented a man serving a 198-year prison sentence for the 1997 murders of two people traveling on four-wheelers to their weekend cabin in Chulitna, according to a memorandum opinion and judgment from the Alaska State Court of Appeals.

The appeals court, last Wednesday, decided Judge Eric Smith must look again at a motion filed by Paul T. Stavenjord, 54, for post-conviction relief. Stavenjord claimed he had incompetent defense attorneys in appeal proceedings after his 1998 trial for the murders of Deborah Rehor, 40, and her husband, Carl Beery, 48, of Big Lake. Rehor and Beery were both killed by a shot to the head near Pass Creek.

Judge Smith handed Stavenjord a 99-year sentence for each death, the maximum allowed in Alaska, after a jury convicted Stavenjord of two counts of first-degree murder. Stavenjord filed an appeal shortly afterward and also filed a motion for post-conviction relief, saying his trial lawyers, Carmen Gutierrez and Jim McComas, were not competent.

Judge Smith dismissed that post-conviction relief petition in July 2000 after an evidentiary hearing. Stavenjord didn't appeal that decision by Smith, according to the most recent appeals court document.

Stavenjord's direct appeal was handled by then-public defenders Greg Heath and George Davenport.

Stavenjord petitioned the Alaska Supreme Court for a hearing in July 2003. That court denied his petition in February 2004.

On April 15, 2004, Stavenjord filed another post-conviction relief application, saying the search warrants in his case were illegal but never mentioning ineffective counsel.

Seven months later, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss Stavenjord's application on the grounds that it raised claims that could have been raised on direct appeal, the application was filed past the time it should have been, it was his second application for post-conviction relief and that his allegations were not materially different from those decided on direct appeal.

Stavenjord opposed the prosecution's motion to dismiss &#8220and claimed - for the first time - that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal,” according to the recent court decision. Stavenjord's claim was based on the grounds that his public defender chose two issues to appeal instead of the seven that Stavenjord wanted.

Judge Smith dismissed Stavenjord's application &#8220for the reasons set forth in the state's motion to dismiss,” but those reasons never addressed the issue of ineffective counsel.

The appeals court agreed Judge Smith should look again at the issue, but said that Stavenjord faces a difficult hurdle in proving his counsel was ineffective.

In order to prove his claim, Stavenjord will have to show that no competent attorney would have made the choices his public defenders made.

Stavenjord, who was represented at trial by the two private attorneys, and by the public defenders on appeal, filed this petition and the motions by himself, something that makes his pleadings held to a less stringent standard, Alaska courts have ruled.

Judge Mannheimer, one of the three judges on the appeals court, addressed the issue, writing that he suspects Stavenjord is without an attorney now because Alaska law says an indigent person isn't entitled to legal representation paid for by the public for the untimely or successive application of post-conviction relief.

&#8220When Stavenjord's case returns to the superior court, it might be proper for the superior court to consider the issue of whether counsel should be appointed to represent Stavenjord in this litigation,” Mannheimer wrote.

The case will remain with the court of appeals for 15 days after the ruling, in case either side wants to ask the supreme court to hear it, according to John Scukanec, assistant attorney general with the Office of Special Prosecutions. Then it will go back to the Palmer court, around the first part of February, he said, and the judge can look it over again and make another ruling.

&#8220He [Stavenjord] did an end run around the other reasons for dismissal, and the court didn't address it,” Scukanec said. &#8220This is not uncommon. We have some cases that go on for years and years and years.”

Contact Mary Ames at

352-2284 or mary.ames@

frontiersman.com.