COURT RULES DRUG DEFENDANT HAD ADEQUATE COUNSEL

LITTLE ROCK -- A Fort Smith man who received a 30-year prison
sentence for drug deals involving less than a gram of methamphetamine
received adequate counsel from his public defender, the state Supreme
Court ruled Thursday.

The high court upheld Khampbang Phiathep's 2004 conviction in
Crawford County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to 24 years in prison
for delivery of methamphetamine and six years in prison for
possession of a counterfeit substance with intent to deliver. The
sentences are to be served consecutively.

According to testimony, Phiathep sold less than a gram of meth to an
informant and attempted to sell to the same informant 11 grams of a
substance he claimed was meth. The Arkansas State Crime Laboratory
later determined the substance was dimethyl sulfone, a substance
often used to "cut" meth.

At a hearing before Circuit Judge Mike Medlock, Phiathep claimed he
received ineffective assistance from deputy public defender Thurman
Ragar. Medlock rejected Phiathep's arguments and let the jury verdict stand.

Phiathep appealed his conviction and sentence to the state Court of
Appeals, which upheld the trial court's judgment. He appealed
Medlock's ruling on effectiveness of counsel to the state Supreme Court.

Prosecutors initially charged Phiathep with possession of
methamphetamine with intent to deliver, but they filed amended
charges shortly before the trial, after receiving the Crime Lab's
report. Phiathep argued Ragar failed to tell him about the new
charges, failed to discuss possible defenses to the new charges,
failed to ask for a severance of the charges and failed to ask for a
postponement of the trial.

Phiathep also argued if he had known he faced a delivery of
methamphetamine charge, he would have accepted a plea offer from the state.

Ragar testified at the hearing before Medlock he discussed with
Phiathep the possibility the state would amend the charges and said
the change did not surprise him or affect his trial preparation.

Ragar also said the state withdrew its plea offer when the new
charges were filed.

"The trial court obviously did not find appellant's testimony
credible," the Supreme Court said in affirming Medlock's ruling.