Title: State v. Bush
Citation: 108 Ariz. 148, 493 P.2d 1205
Docket Number: 2240
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: February 24, 1972

108 Ariz. 148 (1972) 493 P.2d 1205 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James Robert BUSH, Appellant. No. 2240. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. February 24, 1972. *149 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by John S. O'Dowd and Jack M. McCormick, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Howard A. Kashman, Pima County Public Defender, by Eleanor Daru Schorr, Deputy Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant. CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. This is a delayed appeal from a judgment of guilt as a result of pleas of guilty to one count of aggravated assault and one count of robbery with concurrent sentences of not less than three nor more than five years and not less than ten nor more than twelve years. We need consider only one question: Was it error for the trial court to refuse to allow appointed defense counsel to withdraw as counsel for defendant after counsel informed the court that a conflict existed between the appellant and his co-defendant? The facts necessary for a determination of this matter are as follows. On 15 August 1967, a criminal complaint was filed charging defendant Bush, along with David Martinez Laguna and David Aguilar Valenzuela, with robbery, assault with intent to commit robbery, and aggravated assault. The defendants Bush and Valenzuela were "bound over" to the Superior Court and on 1 September 1967, an information was filed against defendant and Valenzuela for assault with intent to commit robbery, aggravated assault, and robbery. Both defendants entered pleas of "not guilty" and counsel, Ronald W. Sommer, was appointed to represent them. Counsel, on 30 October 1967, made the following written motion to the trial court: Attached was an affidavit by the co-defendant Aguilar Valenzuela: The defendant's motion was opposed as follows: The motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for defendant Bush was denied. The jury was selected on 5 December 1967 and on the 6th, after counsel made their opening statements, defendants' attorney informed the court, in the absence of the jury, that both defendants wished to change their pleas to guilty to robbery and aggravated assault. After extensive interrogation by the court, the pleas were accepted, judgment entered, and sentence imposed as indicated. We granted defendant's motion for delayed appeal on 5 February 1971 and counsel was appointed to represent him. WAS IT ERROR FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO REFUSE TO ALLOW DEFENSE COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW? Throughout the criminal process, a criminal defendant has a right to effective assistance of counsel who is untrammeled by possible conflicts of interest: And we have stated: And: Any doubt should be resolved in favor of granting the motion for separate counsel. In the instant case, the uncontroverted affidavit of the attorney and the co-defendant, Valenzuela, shows a clear conflict of interest and it was error not to grant the motion. Our conclusion here should be distinguished from a situation wherein no defenses or strategy had been presented by either co-defendant which would indicate a conflict of interest: "The mere possibility of a future conflict of interests developing by an attorney representing different interests is not sufficient to disqualify him." State v. Garaygordobil, 89 Ariz. 161, 164, 359 P.2d 753, 755 (1961); and see State v. Sowards, 99 Ariz. 22, 406 P.2d 202 (1965) and Williams v. State (Fla. App.), 214 So. 2d 29 (1968). Where the attorney specifically disavows the possibility of conflict and "the possibility of a conflict was, at best, remote * * *", State v. Turnbaugh, 10 Ariz. App. 179, 183, 457 P.2d 719, 723 (1969), error will not be presumed. In the instant case, there was presented, by affidavit, differing defenses and strategies as well as a clear showing of a conflict. Reversed and remanded for new trial. HAYS, C.J., and HOLOHAN, J., concur.