Appellate court hears argument that trial counsel's illness and 404(b) evidence tainted Bobby Joe Patrick's rape trial

Walter Allen Rose, counsel for appellant Bobby Joe Patrick, told the court that Mr. Patrick was convicted on two counts of child rape and sentenced to 67 years, and that the Sixth Amendment entitles him to competent trial counsel. Rose said the postconviction record established three convergent failures by trial counsel: failure to contest a sustained volume of 404(b) character evidence, relying on the defendant's mother as the primary channel of communication with an illiterate client, and the attorney's serious, repeated hospitalizations during the representation.

Rose argued the state's preservation and waiver defenses miss the point, saying the postconviction hearing developed the factual record and the trial court made factual findings on counsel's health and the communication arrangement. "The postconviction hearing established three convergent failures by trial counsel," Rose said, and he urged the court to conclude those failures were not preserved simply by prior appellate rulings.

A central factual focus of Rose's argument was the scope of evidence admitted under Rule 404(b). He said the trial featured a broad cascade of prior-bad-act testimony'including allegations about kidnapping threats, prior thefts, Department of Children's Services involvement and loss of custody'that had little direct relation to the charged offenses but nevertheless painted the defendant as a dangerous person. Rose said the volume and timing of that evidence "waterfall[ed]" over the jury and that defense witnesses were no substitute for keeping the evidence out.

Rose pressed the court on counsel's failure to object repeatedly, to request limiting instructions, or to move for a mistrial when the state's presentation became, in his words, a "wholesale character assassination." He emphasized deposition testimony and the trial court's own findings that trial counsel Mr. Morgan had significant health problems and that Miss Hampton, the defendant's mother, served as the primary communication conduit. "An illiterate man whose attorney communicates primarily through an uneducated family member does not have the attorney-client relationship the Sixth Amendment guarantees," Rose said.

On cumulative error, Rose argued the state's case was not strong on the charged offenses: he said the alleged victim's trial testimony conflicted with earlier forensic interviews on key details and that medical findings described as "consistent" with abuse were also consistent with non-abusive explanations. Stripping the improperly emphasized character evidence, Rose said, leaves an internally inconsistent case that undermines confidence in the verdict.

Ben Ball, arguing for the state, urged the court to affirm the postconviction court. Ball said the operative amended petition below presented a single ineffective-assistance claim centered on the 404(b) ruling; he told the court that other allegations now raised on appeal were either previously determined or waived because the postconviction order did not reach them in legal findings. "The court should affirm the judgment of the postconviction court," Ball said.

Bench questioning focused on whether the postconviction order sufficiently addressed the various claims and whether counsel's alleged illness explains or excuses the absence of contemporaneous objections and limiting motions. The bench pressed whether, once the trial judge allowed certain evidence, a different lawyer could have pursued objections or other tactics that might have changed the outcome. Rose maintained that illness and the communication arrangement deprived the defendant of constitutionally effective assistance.

No decision was announced at argument. Counsel reserved five minutes for rebuttal and the court concluded oral argument after brief procedural exchanges; the court will issue its ruling in due course.