Opinion ID: 2823838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Procedural History A. West

Text: Â¶4Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â During 2002 and 2003, a Colorado state public defender with the Mesa County Regional Office (hereinafter âthe Mesa public defenderâ or âWestâs trial counselâ) represented Thomas West after the victimâs mother, D.S., informed police that she discovered West lying in bed next to her six-year-old daughter with his genitals exposed. D.S. and her ex-husband, D.E.S., both testified at trial for the prosecution. Â¶5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Colorado public defenders had represented D.S. approximately 23 times over the eight years preceding Westâs case. Although Westâs trial counsel had never himself represented D.S., the Mesa County Office represented her seven times between 1998 and 2001. D.S. was also a client of the El Paso County Regional Office, where she had an open case during Westâs trial at issue here. Â¶6Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â In addition, the Mesa County Office represented D.S.âs ex-husband, D.E.S., five times between 1999 and 2002. Westâs trial counsel had filed an entry of appearance in one of these cases, although the prosecution dismissed that case four days after that entry of appearance. Â¶7Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Westâs trial counsel did not inform West or the trial court about these possible conflicts of interest. There was no record regarding the conflict at trial. The jury convicted West of sexual assault on a child. Â¶8Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Following his trial, West filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion, alleging that his trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest. The trial court found no conflict and denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that an actual conflict of interest arose from the public defenderâs dual role as prior and current counsel for D.S. and as prior counsel for D.E.S. 2 The court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether, under Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980), the alleged conflicts adversely affected the Mesa public defenderâs performance in Westâs trial. B. Cano Â¶9Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Colorado state public defenders with the Adams County Regional Office represented Raymond Cano during his murder trial for a gang-related stabbing. At the same time, an attorney from that office entered an appearance for Sergio Aguilar, a prosecution witness against Cano, after Aguilar was arrested on an unrelated attempted murder charge. The Adams County Office thus represented both Cano and Aguilar in different matters during Canoâs trial. Although Aguilar did not testify at the trial, evidence indicated that he could have been an alternate suspect in the stabbing alleged in Canoâs case. Canoâs attorneys did not pursue this theory. There was no record at trial of the conflict. A jury found Cano guilty of first degree murder. Â¶10Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Cano, like West, filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion for post-conviction relief, raising the conflict of interest issue. The trial court denied the motion, finding that no conflict existed under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and that even if a conflict existed, no prejudice to Canoâs defense resulted from it. The court of appeals held that the trial court erred by applying Strickland and reversed and remanded for consideration under the Sullivan standard. 3