Opinion ID: 2823838
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conflicts

Text: Â¶39Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The cases before us involve public defendersâ simultaneous representation of the defendants and the prosecution witnesses against them. In neither case was there any acknowledgement or record of the conflict at trial. The post-conviction courts found that these situations did not raise conflicts of interest for counsel, but two divisions of the court of appeals reversed and remanded for evaluation under Sullivan. Â¶40Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Communications between the Mesa and El Paso offices of the State Public Defender potentially tainted the Mesa public defenderâs representation of West. The record reveals that Mesaâs investigator requested D.S.âs files in an unrelated open matter from the El Paso County Office during Westâs case. Even assuming that the Mesa public defender did not actually acquire confidential information about D.S., as the trial court found, he undeniably had access to it. It is evident that representation of both West and D.S. created âa situation inherently conducive to and productive of divided loyalties.â Castro, 657 P.2d at 945. Â¶41Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Although the public defender representing the potential alternate suspect, Aguilar, was not involved in Canoâs case, the Adams County Office consisted of approximately 15 attorneys who routinely consulted each other on cases and worked in close proximity to one another. We may presume that Canoâs public defenders in the same office had access to confidential material about Aguilar, and vice versa. Â¶42Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The Mesa County Officeâs potential imputed 10 conflict involving D.S. and the Adams County Officeâs potential conflict with Aguilar both involve concurrent representation and therefore fall under Sullivan. Â¶43Â Â Â Â Â Â Â D.E.S., however, presents a slightly different issue: Westâs trial counsel once entered an appearance for D.E.S., and although he had no open cases with public defenders during Westâs proceedings, the Mesa County Office had represented him many times. The potential conflict with D.E.S. was therefore successive. Â¶44Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Whether âactualâ conflicts existed in Westâs and Canoâs cases will turn on whether the alleged conflicts adversely affected their counselsâ performances. West and Cano can thus prevail on their Crim. P. 35(c) motions on remand if they demonstrate that the public defendersâ concurrent or successive representation of prosecution witnesses had an adverse effect on their counselsâ representation of them.