Opinion ID: 1355148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Sentencing Phase Counsel's Alleged Conflict of Interest

Text: Hunter's trial counsel withdrew prior to sentencing, and he was appointed new counsel for sentencing. His new appointed counsel had previously represented one of Hunter's co-defendants, Big Mark Williams, in negotiating a plea agreement. Hunter now claims that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. Gillard v. Mitchell, 445 F.3d 883, 890 (6th Cir.2006). Gillard is an application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and likewise requires a showing of both cause and prejudice. 445 F.3d at 890. To succeed in this context, a defendant must show both that his counsel (1) had an actual conflict of interest, and (2) acted adverse to his client's interests because of the conflict. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Hunter has not made such a showing here. Williams pleaded guilty three to four months before the jury verdict in Mr. Hunter's case, and was sentenced before Hunter's trial counsel withdrew. And, while Williams testified at Hunter's trial, the lawyer who represented Hunter at sentencing was not involved in preparing Williams to do so. Thus, he did not actively represent conflicting interests, Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), and Hunter has not established ineffectiveness. United States v. Hall, 200 F.3d 962, 965-66 (6th Cir.2000) (We will not find an actual conflict unless appellants can point to `specific instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment of their interests.'). Hunter also fails to establish prejudice, as he does not offer evidence of any adverse choices his counsel made at sentencing because of his prior representation of Williams. In any case, Hunter waived any conflict of interest that may have existed. The appointed counsel brought the potential conflict to the attention of the court prior to commencing representation, and the court held a hearing on the matter. In the hearing, the court inquired into the nature of the conflict, advised Hunter of his rights, and Hunter voluntarily agreed to the representation. This is sufficient to waive any conflict that may have existed, absent a showing of a Sixth Amendment violation under Strickland. See Hall, 200 F.3d at 965-66.