Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02214/USCOURTS-ca10-93-02214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Onofre R. Gallegos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ONOFRE R. GALLEGOS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NOV 0 IIPf,_ 

93-2214 

On Appeal From The 

United States District Court 

For The District Of New Mexico 

(D.C. No. CR-91-12-JC) 

Jana M. Miner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Cruces, 

New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Robert J. Gorence, First Assistant United States Attorney 

(John J. Kelly, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before BALDOCK, SETH, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

SETH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 1 
Appellant was convicted by jury trial of knowingly making a 

false statement for the purpose of influencing a bank to make a 

loan. 18 U.S.C. § 1014. In United States v. Gallegos, 975 F.2d 

710 (lOth Cir.), we remanded for resentencing. The remand was 

also for a determination of Mr. Gallegos' ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel claim, a claim that was not made in the trial 

court. It was the district court's determination on remand that 

there was no Sixth Amendment effective assistance violation. This 

appeal concerns only ~hat conclusion of the trial court. 

The key issue to be resolved by this court is thus whether a 

conflict of interest existed which rendered ineffective the 

representation of Appellant by Mr. James Brandenburg at the trial 

level. Appellant contends that two members of the same firm, 

Mr. Brandenburg and his partner and daughter, Kari Brandenburg, 

inappropriately represented both William Littlefield and Appellant 

whose interests were adverse to each other. 

The Sixth Amendment, of course, entitles a defendant in a 

criminal case to the effective assistance of competent counsel. 

Powell v. Alabama, 287 u.s. 45. The FourLeenth Amendment makes 

this right applicable to the states by preventing states "from 

conducting trials at which persons who face incarceration must 

defend themselves without adequate legal assistance." Cuyler v. 

Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 344. It is further clear that the right 

to counsel includes the "right to representation that is free from 

conflicts of interest." United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494, 

1500 (lOth Cir.) (quoting Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 271). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 2 
The standard by which an asserted conflict of interest claim 

is measured is set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335. 

Cuyler held that a defendant who claims a violation of the Sixth 

Amendment, yet raised no objection at trial, must demonstrate that 

an "actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's 

performance." Id. at 348. Thus the "possibility" of conflict 

alone is "insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction." Id. at 

350. The question under Cuyler is {1) whether there existed 

actual conflict; and l2) whether it had an adverse impact on the 

attorney's performance. 

Appellant asserts four points of error in this appeal: 

(1) that the district court erred in determining that Appellant's 

attorney, James Brandenburg, did not have a conflict of interest 

with regard to his representation of Mr. Gallegos; (2} that the 

trial court erred in its determination that Mr. Brandenburg's 

representation of Appellant was not rendered ineffective as a 

result of any conflict of interest; (3) that the district court 

incorrectly applied the ineffective assistance of counsel standard 

of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, rather than the 

analysis set forth in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335; and 

(4) that the trial court erred by limiting its analysis of 

Mr. Brandenburg's performance to a review of the conflict of 

interest issue only. Appellant urges that the New Mexico Code of 

Professional Conduct be applied. See N.M. Code of Prof. Cond. 

§ 16-109, et seq. 

Our review of the district court's determination of whether 

an actual conflict existed is de novo. United States v. Martin, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 3 
965 F.2d 839 (lOth Cir.). The district court's factual 

conclusions giving rise to its determination are subject to a 

clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. 

Appellant was indicted by a federal grand jury on January 9, 

1991 and charged with making a false statement with regard to a 

loan application for his company Metro-Tech. On January 18, 1991 

Appellant hired James Brandenburg, a partner in Brandenburg and 

Brandenburg, P.C., to represent him on the charges. 

Prior to the indictment of Appellant and his retention of 

Mr. Brandenburg, Appellant's business partner, William 

Littlefield, had retained Mr. Brandenburg's partner and daughter, 

Kari Brandenburg. This was after a target letter Mr. Littlefield 

received from the United States Attorney on October 10, 1990. On 

December 4, 1990, Mr. Littlefield spoke with Appellant and 

informed him that an indictment could be imminent and that he had 

retained Kari Brandenburg as counsel. Kari Brandenburg responded 

to the Littlefield target letter on December 7, 1990 with an offer 

that Mr. Littlefield would debrief the government so long as 

nothing he said during the debriefing wou~d be used against him. 

This offer was accepted by the United States Attorney, and on 

January 8, 1991, Mr. Littlefield met with a representative of the 

United States Attorney. The meeting resulted in an agreement that 

Mr. Littlefield would not be prosecuted. 

When Appellant's trial took place, Mr. Littlefield appeared 

and testified as a government witness. The Cuyler case states, as 

mentioned, that "until a defendant shows that his counsel actively 

represented conflicting interests, he has not established the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 4 
constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance." 

Cuyler, 446 u.s. at 350; United States v. Soto Hernandez, 849 F.2d 

1325, 1329 (lOth Cir.). Thus our inquiry is not whether a state 

disciplinary rule for lawyers has been violated by the 

Brandenburgs, but whether, everything considered, Appellant's 

counsel "actively" represented conflicting interests. The state 

rule is hereinafter discussed. 

We conclude that the Brandenburgs did not actively represent 

Mr. Littlefield when they were representing Appellant. As 

mentioned, the representation of Mr. Littlefield was handled by 

Kari Brandenburg. For purposes of this case we assume that it was 

then imputed to James Brandenburg. Burger v. Kemp, 483 u.s. 776, 

783; Martinez v. Sullivan, 881 F.2d 921, 930 (lOth Cir.). The 

record demonstrates, however, that the representation of 

Mr. Littlefield by the firm terminated prior to the representation 

of Appellant. As recited above, Mr. Littlefield met with the 

United States Attorney's office on January 8, 1991 and at that 

time it was agreed that he would not be prosecuted. The record 

shows also that on January 10, 1991 Kari rlrandenburg corresponded 

with Mr. Littlefield and "basically closed my case on him." Brief 

for Appellee at 5. Appellant retained James Brandenburg on 

January 18, 1991, eight days after Mr. Brandenburg's 

representation of Mr. Littlefield ceased. Before Appellant 

engaged Mr. Brandenburg he knew that Mr. Littlefield had been 

represented by Kari Brandenburg. 

Of significance, the record demonstrates that there was no 

intermingling of the files in the Brandenburgs' office, and no 

-5-

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 5 
exchange of comments or information between the partners. 

Further, with regard to his cross-examination of Mr. Littlefield, 

we find there was no indication that Mr. Brandenburg was laboring 

under a conflict of interest. Rather, the record indicates that 

Mr. Brandenburg's questions elicited numerous positive statements 

from Mr. Littlefield regarding Appellant and Metro-Tech. R. at 

321-26. In direct response to one of Mr. Brandenburg's questions 

Mr. Littlefield stated that in his experience at Metro-Tech he had 

never seen evidence cf wrongdoing or misrepresentation. R. at 

321-22. Moreover, Mr. Brandenburg stated that he viewed 

Mr. Littlefield as a positive witness, and that Mr. Littlefield 

would have been called as a witness for the defense had the 

prosecution not called him. Brief for Appellee at 6-7. Finally, 

we agree with the trial court which stated that areas not covered 

by Mr. Brandenburg in his cross-examination of Mr. Littlefield 

would not have affected the outcome of the trial, but were rather 

omitted by Mr. Brandenburg under his theory of the case. 

The Appellant raises as an issue the provisions of the Rules 

of Professional Conduct, and asserts that a conflict in the 

Brandenburg firm existed. N.M. Code of Prof. Cond. 16-107, 

16-108, 16-109, 16-110. The crux of these disciplinary rules is 

that a lawyer should not represent a client whose interests are 

adverse to those of a present client, or whose interests are 

adverse to those of a former client on a matter that is the same 

or substantially related to the previous matter. N.M. Code of 

Prof. Cond. 16-107, 16-109. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 6 
We have considered these rules and they are very important in 

the disciplinary context. It is apparent that some elements 

therein bear on the constitutional issue. However, it is apparent 

also that a violation of the rules will not in itself constitute a 

constitutional violation under Cuyler and related cases. These 

require that an "actual" conflict must be established, and this 

has not been done in the case before us. 

We agree with the trial court's conclusion that no actual 

conflict existed. Mcreover, we note that the trial court 

correctly applied the Cuyler doctrine in reaching its conclusion. 

AFFIRMED. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 93-2214 Document: 01019286892 Date Filed: 11/04/1994 Page: 7