Opinion ID: 2631199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Actual Conflict of Interest or Irreconcilable Conflict

Text: Stenson contends that there was an actual conflict between himself and Leatherman due to differences in fundamental strategic choices. PRP at 13. Stenson wanted Leatherman to do everything he could to prove Stenson's innocence; Leatherman, after a certain point, felt Stenson had little chance in the guilt phase and concentrated his efforts on saving Stenson's life in the penalty phase. RTP 3118. Petitioner argues that Leatherman should have withdrawn when this conflict with his client's objectives became clear, and that Leatherman's failure to do so substantially prejudiced him before the trial court. PRP at 14. The State counters that Petitioner confuses the concept of conflicts of interest with that of irreconcilable conflicts and breakdowns in communication. State's Resp. at 7. Petitioner's arguments and citations of legal authority do indeed concern conflicts of interest rather than irreconcilable conflicts. See PRP at 12-17. The phrase used by Petitioner, actual conflict, appears to be shorthand for actual conflict of interest, which, in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), contrasts with a possible conflict of interest. A conflict of interest, however, does not appear to have been present in Stenson's case. Cuyler exemplifies one common kind of conflict of interest: where the conflict arises out of multiple representation. Id. at 335. Another kind of conflict of interest occurs where the attorney is accused of crimes similar to those of his client and where a vigorous defense might uncover evidence of the attorney's own crimes. Mannhalt v. Reed, 847 F.2d 576, 581 (9th Cir.1988). In Mannhalt the attorney's own interest conflicted with his client's. Petitioner conceives of his case as one in which his lawyer's personal interest conflicted with Petitioner's and cites RPC 1.7(b) in support of his argument. PRP at 14. Yet that provision, which states that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, largely concerns financial or familial interests, as shown by RPC 1.8. Case law does not support the application of the concept of a conflict of interest to conflicts between an attorney and client over trial strategy. The State extensively briefed the alternative argument, characterizing the conflict in this case as falling within the category of irreconcilable conflicts. State's Resp. at 16-35. If the relationship between lawyer and client completely collapses, the refusal to substitute new counsel violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Brown v. Craven, 424 F.2d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir.1970)). There are certain exceptions to the Strickland standard requiring a showing of prejudice in order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. See Frazer v. United States, 18 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir. 1994). A defendant need not show prejudice when the breakdown of a relationship between attorney and defendant from irreconcilable differences results in the complete denial of counsel. Moore, 159 F.3d at 1158. The State first argues that this issue need not be considered on its merits because it is procedurally barred. State's Resp. at 2-4. What was formerly a substitution of counsel issue has been recast as a claim of irreconcilable conflict causing ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. at 3-4. Because identical grounds for relief can be supported by different legal arguments or couched in different language, simply recasting an argument in that manner does not create a new ground for relief or constitute good cause for reconsidering a previously rejected claim. Benn, 134 Wash.2d at 906, 952 P.2d 116 (citing In re Personal Restraint of Jeffries, 114 Wash.2d 485, 488, 789 P.2d 731 (1990)). The Benn court rejected one of petitioner Benn's claims because he recast an issue of trial court error in admitting testimony and limiting cross-examination as an ineffective assistance claim. Benn, 134 Wash.2d at 905-06, 952 P.2d 116; State v. Benn, 120 Wash.2d 631, 648-52, 845 P.2d 289 (1993). However, a material intervening change in the law would constitute good cause to permit a successive petition under RAP 16.4(d). Jeffries, 114 Wash.2d at 488, 789 P.2d 731 (citing Taylor, 105 Wash.2d at 688, 717 P.2d 755). On direct appeal Stenson raised the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for substitution of counsel. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 684, 940 P.2d 1239. In this court's analysis of the issue we said that a criminal defendant who is dissatisfied with appointed counsel must show good cause to warrant substitution of counsel, such as a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication. Id. at 734, 940 P.2d 1239. We stated that the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a motion to substitute counsel are (1) the reasons given for the dissatisfaction, (2) the court's own evaluation of counsel, and (3) the effect of any substitution upon the scheduled proceedings. Id. (citing State v. Stark, 48 Wash.App. 245, 253, 738 P.2d 684 (1987)). We concluded that the denial of the motion for new counsel was not an abuse of discretion. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 737, 940 P.2d 1239. In a decision subsequent to Stenson, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the test for assessing whether a trial court erred in failing to substitute counsel to the determination of whether an irreconcilable conflict exists. Moore, 159 F.3d at 1158 n. 3. The factors in the test are (1) the extent of the conflict, (2) the adequacy of the inquiry, and (3) the timeliness of the motion. Id. at 1158-59. Although the Ninth Circuit's irreconcilable conflict test covers some of the same ground as our test for substitution of counsel, the differences are substantial enough to constitute a new ground for relief. The Ninth Circuit's adoption of this test is a material intervening change in the law. Thus, although this court in Stenson found that the trial court did not err in denying Stenson's motion to substitute counsel, the change in the law represents good cause under RAP 16.4(d) to revisit the issue by applying the new test for an irreconcilable conflict as part of a determination of whether trial counsel was ineffective. When inquiring into the extent of the conflict, the Ninth Circuit's precedents examine both the extent and nature of the breakdown in communication between attorney and client and the breakdown's effect on the representation the client actually receives. If the representation is inadequate, prejudice is presumed. In Brown the defendant went to trial with an attorney with whom he would not cooperate and with whom he would not, in any manner whatsoever, communicate. Brown, 424 F.2d at 1166. The Ninth Circuit found Brown's defense to be perfunctory and stated that it would not be unreasonable to believe that had Brown been represented by an attorney in whom he had confidence, he would have been convicted of manslaughter rather than second degree murder. Id. at 1169-70. In United States v. Williams, 594 F.2d 1258, 1259 (9th Cir.1979), attorney and client were at serious odds for some time. In that case, the attorney-client relationship was a stormy one with quarrels, bad language, threats, and counter-threats. Id. at 1260. The court found the facts of Williams indistinguishable from those in Brown. Id. In Frazer the actions of the attorney were so egregious that the court found the attorney's inappropriate eruption (verbally assaulting his client by using a racially derogatory term and threatening to provide substandard performance for him if he chose to exercise his right to go to trial) would be tantamount to a total lack of communication and make fatally suspect all advice following the outburst. Frazer, 18 F.3d at 783. In Moore the defendant and his counsel engaged in a serious argument when counsel failed to inform Moore of an important development in his case. Moore, 159 F.3d at 1159. Moore threatened to sue his attorney for malpractice. Id. The attorney later testified that on that occasion, he felt physically threatened by Moore. Id. The Court of Appeals accepted Moore's view that his attorney did nothing in a 68-day period leading up to trial except to interview Moore's son. Id. On the other hand, the United States Supreme Court held in Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 3-4, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983), that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a meaningful relationship between an accused and his counsel. The court in Frazer summarized the facts of Morris thus: [1] In Morris, an indigent defendant had a unilateral falling out with his attorney caused not by any identifiable objective misconduct by the attorney, but by (1) [Slappy's] dissatisfaction with a switch from one public defender to another, (2) [Slappy's] opinion that the new public defender had not had enough time to prepare for trial, and (3) by the second public defender's assessment that [Slappy] had no defense to [the] charges . Because of this unilateral falling out, [Slappy] refused to participate in his own defense. In affirming the denial by the district court of [Slappy's] petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court rejected [Slappy's] claim that a defendant has the right to a certain rapport with his attorney. Frazer, 18 F.3d at 783 (citations omitted). In Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692, 100 L.Ed.2d 140 (1988), the Court stated that because the purpose of providing assistance of counsel is to ensure that criminal defendants receive a fair trial, the appropriate inquiry focuses on the adversarial process, not on the accused's relationship with his lawyer as such. The essential aim of the Sixth Amendment is to guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant rather than to ensure that a defendant will inexorably be represented by the lawyer whom he prefers. Id. On May 3, 1993, David Neupert of the Clallam County Public Defender's Office was appointed to represent Stenson. PRP at 8; PRP, Attach. A at 1. On July 21, 1993, Al Lyon was appointed lead counsel, but on October 21, 1993, Lyon withdrew and Fred Leatherman was appointed to replace Lyon. PRP at 8; PRP, Attach. A at 1. Leatherman had been a criminal law attorney in Washington for almost 20 years and had extensive experience in death penalty litigation. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 730, 940 P.2d 1239. Although Neupert had been co-counsel on several homicide cases, he was not death-penalty qualified. Dep. of Neupert at 6, 16. At all times Neupert continued to represent Stenson. PRP, Attach. A at 1-2. On July 13, 1994, after more than 20 days of jury selection, the trial court held an in camera hearing on Stenson's motion to substitute counsel or to proceed pro se. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 730-31, 940 P.2d 1239. The trial court denied the motion. Id. at 733, 940 P.2d 1239. On August 3, 1994, 33 days after jury selection began, Leatherman made a motion to withdraw as defense counsel. Id. at 742, 940 P.2d 1239. The court denied Leatherman's motion to withdraw because nothing the court had seen had raised concerns about the quality of representation given to Stenson. RTP at 1507. Among other things, Stenson's July 12, 1994 motion requests the dismissal of both Leatherman and Neupert because of the breakdown of the attorney-client relationship between himself and his counsel. Def.'s Mot. to Continue Trial, Appoint New Counsel, or, in the Alternative, Allow Him to Proceed Pro Se at 1. At the July 13 in camera hearing, both Leatherman and Stenson described the source of the conflict between them as a dispute over trial strategy. Leatherman and Neupert had come to the conclusion that the guilt phase of the case could not be won and therefore did not want to do anything during the guilt phase which would create problems for the defense during the penalty phase. RVP at 3118. They had reached that conclusion because of the blood evidence, which both the State's and defense experts found inconsistent with Stenson's account of his activities. Id. at 3139. Leatherman felt that the tactical ploy urged on him by Stenson putting Denise Hoerner, Frank Hoerner's widow, on trial and trying to lay this crime at [her] feetwould cause the jury to harden its opinion against the defendant and make them more likely to return a death sentence. Id. at 3119, 3132, 3138. From Stenson's perspective Leatherman did not fulfill his obligation to defend his client; Leatherman did not help Stenson prove his innocence. Id. at 3125. Stenson complained that Leatherman spent virtually no time preparing for the jury trial but concentrated instead on motions, jury selection, and the penalty phase. Id. at 3125-26. Stenson's attorneys refused to investigate things he and his family thought were important to the case. Id. at 3125. Leatherman became less and less positive toward Stenson; Neupert was initially positive, but that changed when Leatherman joined the team. Dep. of Stenson at 6-7. Stenson became frightened and irate. Id. at 19. He reports strong words were exchanged between himself and Leatherman. RVP at 3126. Stenson attempted to fire Leatherman twice, but was talked out of it; on the first occasion by his sister-in-law and on the second by Neupert. State's Resp., App. D, Stenson's Letter to Stacey (Letter to Stacey) at 1-2. Stenson repeatedly asked his attorneys to meet with him to keep him informed; he says Leatherman visited him in prison fewer than 10 times in 10 months. RVP at 3121. Stenson could never get through to Leatherman on the phone; Leatherman's office stopped receiving his calls. Dep. of Stenson at 22; RVP 3121. On the other hand, at the in camera hearing, Stenson pronounced himself satisfied by the jury selection process to that point. RVP at 3120. Leatherman remembers that he and Neupert divided up their tasks and responsibilities; Leatherman worked on pretrial motions and the penalty phase, and Neupert was primarily responsible for the guilt phase, though he was supervised by Leatherman. Dep. of Leatherman at 8. Billing records, which Leatherman says are accurate, indicate that Leatherman visited Stenson 10 times between October of 1993 and January of 1994. Id. at 3132. Leatherman believes he met with Stenson on a regular basis but is unable to estimate the frequency of the meetings. Id. at 33. Neupert remembers that from November of 1993 to June of 1994, the period of time from the appointment of Leatherman to the trial, Neupert met with Stenson roughly twice a week. Dep. of Neupert at 22-23. Jeff Walker, investigator for the defense, worked solely on the guilt phase of the case with the objective of trying to acquit Stenson. Dep. of Walker at 23. Walker billed the county approximately $35,000 for his services. Id. Walker also witnessed the friction between Leatherman and Stenson, but said that such friction is almost routine in criminal defense work. Id. at 60-62. When Stenson was able to speak with Leatherman and Neupert, he said he had no trouble telling them things, but complained that nothing got done. Dep. of Stenson at 20-21. In denying Stenson's motion to substitute counsel, the trial court offered this evaluation of Leatherman's and Neupert's performance: Competent counsel have been appointed to represent Mr. Stenson. There's nothing in the case to date that would give rise to even the slightest suggestion that counsel has not been diligent, prepared or in any way acting other than in Mr. Stenson's best interest. To the contrary, some six days of very complicated Frye hearings [ Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923) ], 21 days of jury selection, other days spent on briefing and argument on numerous substantive issues including motions to dismiss the special sentencing proceeding and other motions provide ample evidence that those attorneys appointed to represent Mr. Stenson are acting with diligence and professionally and vigorously on the defendant's behalf. RVP at 3306-07. On August 3, 1994, three weeks after the in camera hearing on Stenson's motion and 10 days into the trial, the trial court held another in camera hearing at Leatherman's request. The item which precipitated the hearing was an article appearing in that day's Sequim Gazette titled Family Worried About Defense's Efforts During the Trial. RTP at 1500. Leatherman inferred that Stenson and at least one of his sisters had spoken with the reporter in order to complain about the conduct of defense counsel; Leatherman had advised Stenson not to speak with the press. Id. at 1501. As a result, Leatherman felt he did not have an attorney-client relationship with Stenson. Id. I'm extremely frustrated with him to the point of really not wanting to go on with this case.... Quite frankly, I can't stand the sight of him. Id. The trial court pointed out that the article attributed statements to Stenson's family, not to Stenson. Id. at 1503. The court reiterated its earlier endorsement of counsel's performance: It is still my finding that there is no evidence from which I could even begin to conclude that Mr. Stenson was not receiving very competent and professional counsel. Id. The court denied Leatherman's motion to withdraw and explained to Stenson that if the situation deteriorated, he would be free to make a motion to substitute counsel. Id. at 1504. Although afraid to proceed with his counsel and afraid to proceed without them, Stenson did not move to substitute counsel. Id. at 1506. Stenson expressed this view of his counsels' performance during the trial thus far: Now as far as Mr. Leatherman and Mr. Neupert's trial tactics, as far as their technique and their expertise and their knowledge of how to conduct a trial and that and how to spar with Mr. Bruneau, they have been exceptional. Id. at 1505-06. Stenson continued to complain about a lack of communication and was upset that counsel had visited him only twice during the three-week duration of the trial. Id. at 1506. The extent of the conflict between Stenson and his counsel does not appear to be comparable to those in the precedents from the Ninth Circuit; the effects of any breakdown in communication on attorney performance seem negligible. In Brown, 424 F.2d at 1169-70, the Court of Appeals found the representation given to Brown to be perfunctory and expressed the view that, had representation been better, Brown would have been convicted of a lesser-included offense. As a result of the conflict in Moore, 159 F.3d at 1158, Moore's attorney conducted only one interview in a 68-day period leading up to trial. Here, whatever the disagreements between Stenson and his counsel, Leatherman and Neupert (and there appears to have been no angry words exchanged between Stenson and Neupert), there is no evidence to suggest that the representation Stenson received was in any way inadequate. Although Neupert was assigned primary responsibility for the guilt phase of the trial (Dep. of Leatherman at 113), both attorneys participated in the guilt phase. The State presented 33 witnesses; of these, 25 were crossexamined, 15 by Neupert and 11 by Leatherman (one witness, called to testify more than once, was cross-examined by both counsel). The defense also called five witnesses of its own. Stenson himself expressed general satisfaction with the way his attorneys had conducted the trial. RVP at 3120; RTP at 1505-06. More specific allegations of ineffective assistance will be discussed later in this opinion. Hence, the judgment of the trial court, an examination of the record, and the words of Stenson himself indicate that the representation Stenson received was far superior to that suffered by the defendants in Brown and Moore. With respect to the extent and nature of the breakdown in communication, this case also does not approach the severity of the Ninth Circuit precedents such as Brown and Frazer, in which the breakdown was tantamount to a total lack of communication. Frazer, 18 F.3d at 783. Whatever lack of communication may have occurred between Stenson and Leatherman, Neupert visited Stenson twice a week. Dep. of Neupert at 22-23. Stenson agreed that he had no trouble talking with Neupert. Dep. of Stenson at 20-21. Stenson's major remaining complaint on this point is that he couldn't get Leatherman to return his phone calls. Given the other kinds of communication which did take place, Leatherman's failure is not a significant one. At the August 3, 1994 in camera hearing on Leatherman's motion to withdraw, Leatherman did claim he no longer had an attorney-client relationship with Stenson. RTP at 1501. However, that specific breakdown did not last long. It was brought on by a newspaper article which appeared earlier on the day of the hearing. The trial court's denial of Leatherman's motion appears to have brought this particular rift to an end. Nothing in the record suggests it continued. The court invited Stenson to file at any time a motion to substitute counsel. RTP at 1504. Stenson declined to do so at that time or at any time during the trial. Stenson did petition the court for a mistrial on August 19, 1994, the day the judgment and sentence were handed down. PRP, Attach. C, Decl. of Darold J. Stenson at 2; J. and Sentence at 1-2. In that handwritten petition, however, Stenson did not renew his claim of a breakdown in communication but rather that Leatherman's performance was only minimally adequate. Stenson's Mot. for Mistrial at 1. Because it does not appear that the extent of the conflict was very great or the breakdown in communication very severe, we do not discuss in any great detail the remaining factors in the Moore test for an irreconcilable conflict. The second factor is the adequacy of the trial court's inquiry into the breakdown. See Moore, 159 F.3d at 1158. Both Stenson and Leatherman were allowed to express their concerns at the July 13, 1994 in camera hearing. The depositions of Stenson, Leatherman, Neupert, and Walker, taken as part of the ineffective assistance inquiry, did not yield vital information beyond that already presented at the in camera hearing. The trial court's inquiry appears to have been sufficiently searching. The third Moore factor is the timeliness of the motion for substitution of counsel. Moore, 159 F.3d at 1161. The defendant in Moore made several attempts to substitute counsel, the first over a month before the trial and the last still two weeks before the start of trial. Id. The court found both motions timely. Id. On the other hand, where the request for change of counsel comes during the trial, or on the eve of trial, the Court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, refuse to delay the trial to obtain new counsel and therefore may reject the request. Williams, 594 F.2d at 1260-61 (citing United States v. Price, 474 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir.1973); Good v. United States, 378 F.2d 934 (9th Cir.1967)). See also Moore, 159 F.3d at 1161. Although early on Stenson had twice considered firing Leatherman, he was dissuaded from bringing a motion to do so. Letter to Stacey at 1-2. When he did present such a motion, substitution of counsel would have necessitated impaneling a new jury and 21 days had already been spent selecting the jury in place at that time. Stenson, 132 Wash.2d at 736, 940 P.2d 1239. The trial court estimated a new attorney would need at least 30 days to review the case material and another 30 days to prepare adequately for a trial. RVP at 3311. Calling Stenson's motion for substitution of counsel untimely, the court denied it. RVP at 3302-03. The factor of timeliness weighs against the finding that an irreconcilable conflict existed. After considering the three Moore factors, we find that there is no reason to believe that an irreconcilable conflict between Stenson and his counsel existed. The differences between defendant and counsel in this case do not come close to constituting denial of counsel to such an extent that prejudice may be presumed.