Opinion ID: 1936463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attorney Conflict of Interest: Assignments of Error # 2, 13

Text: The defendant argues that his appointed lead counsel, E. Roland Charles, had an actual conflict of interest which denied Tart effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and La. Const. art. I, § 13. The defendant also argues the trial judge erred in failing to make further inquiry as to this conflict when the defendant sought to have Charles replaced as counsel immediately prior to trial. Charles was one of two attorneys originally appointed to represent the defendant in September, 1989. In August 1990, Charles was relieved of his appointment while he ran for judicial office. He was reappointed as lead counsel on December 3, 1990. Tart was represented at one pretrial suppression hearing by Charles and D.C. Bernhardt. He was represented at a later suppression hearing by Charles and Robert Stephen Tew. Charles and Tew represented Tart at trial. Charles' prior representation of Shelby Sneed, a prosecution witness at Tart's trial, for two unrelated criminal charges serves as the basis for Tart's conflict of interest claim. Throughout its appellate brief, the defense has argued its belief that Sneed was acting as a police informant, was purposely placed next to Tart, and actually coerced Tart into confessing to the Quenan murders. Tart maintains that Charles' prior representation of Sneed prevented the defense from effectively cross-examining Sneed as to: 1) his role in the Quenan murder investigation, 2) any benefits he received from his purported actions, and 3) his motives for testifying. Documents relating to Sneed's criminal prosecutions, appended as exhibits to the defendant's brief but not accepted as part of the record, indicate Charles and/or Jay Nolan was/were appointed to represent Sneed on September 15, 1989, for the offense for which he was incarcerated with Tart. The documents reflect that by September 26, 1989, Sneed's offense was amended to illegal possession of stolen property. Charles also represented Sneed in connection with April 1990 charges of two counts of distribution of cocaine and one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The documents show the two counts of distribution, and the illegal possession of stolen property charge, were dismissed pursuant to a plea bargain in which Sneed pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge. Sneed received a six year sentence on the conspiracy charge on February 19, 1991. Even according to these exhibits which are outside of the record, it is clear Charles' active representation of Sneed ended February 19, 1991, prior to Tart's trial. On the first day of trial, just prior to the beginning of jury selection, Tart personally addressed the court: Tart: I want to know if I can get another head lawyer because I don't think Roland Charles is working as hard as he could on my case. Court: Do you have anything in support of that other than just your statement to that effect? Tart: Yes, sir. When we come down to court, sir, and when we are arguing and it's the defense ... I don't know what they call it ... looks like he's sitting down like he is drinking coffee out here and I don't trust him. Like I had to file my own motions to get up on paperwork up there and he won't give it to me and I don't trust him. Court: All right. Mr. Tart, thank you. Let the motion be denied. Tart: Denied? Court: Denied, Mr. Tart. Have a seat. R. Vol. 6, p. 1151-1152. The issue of conflicting loyalties usually arises in the context of joint representation but can also arise where an attorney runs into a conflict because he or she is required to cross-examine a witness who is testifying against the defendant and who was or is a client of the attorney. State v. Kirkpatrick, 443 So.2d 546, 552 (La.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 2374, 80 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). If an objection as to a possible conflict of interest is raised pretrial, the trial court must appoint separate counsel or determine if the claimed risk is too remote. If an objection to an attorney conflict of interest is not raised until after trial, the defendant must show he was actually prejudiced. State v. Marshall, 414 So.2d 684, 687-688 (La.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1048, 103 S.Ct. 468, 74 L.Ed.2d 617 (1982), relying on Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) and Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); State v. Edwards, 430 So.2d 60, 62 (La.1983). Tart fails to prove that an actual conflict of interest arose. The defendant raised objection to Charles pretrial. Although inarticulate in his reasons for wishing to have Charles replaced, appellate counsel cites the possible conflict of interest as the motivating factor behind Tart's request. Under Holloway, the trial judge had two options to avoid a possible conflict of interest: appoint separate counsel or hold a hearing to determine the risk factor. The trial judge properly denied the request because one of the two available options was already in place. Separate counsel was already appointed. Although Charles might have had a possible conflict of interest over his past representation of Sneed and his current representation of Tart, his co-counsel, Robert Tew, suffered no such impediment. In its argument the defense ignores the fact that it was Tew, and not Charles, who cross-examined Sneed both at the pretrial suppression hearing and at trial. Any possible conflict of interest regarding Charles' prior representation of Sneed never became an actual conflict. An actual conflict of interest is established when the defendant proves that his attorney was placed in a situation inherently conducive to divided loyalties. State v. Carmouche, 508 So.2d 792, 797 (La.1987). In Carmouche, defendant was represented by an attorney who had also represented a prosecution witness. Carmouche held any conflict here was only potential until such time as defense counsel might choose to cross-examine and impeach his client [witness] before the jury regarding confidential matters or bias, particularly in relation to [the witness's] reasons for testifying. Id., 508 So.2d at 797. Since Charles did not cross-examine or try to impeach his former client, no actual conflict arose. The appropriate remedy stated in Carmouche, as well, was appointment of other counsel. These assignments of error have no merit.