Opinion ID: 2174346
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: allegations of pre-trial error

Text: Christeson claims that the trial court erred in denying his trial counsel's motion to withdraw as his attorney, thereby denying him his rights to due process, a fair trial, conflict-free counsel, effective assistance of counsel, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment as provided under amendments V, VI, VIII, and XIV of the United States Constitution and article I, sections 10, 18(a), and 21 of the Missouri Constitution. Christeson relies on these same federal and state constitutional provisions for each point of error on appeal. The motion to withdraw, filed about three months before trial, was based on a conflict of interest asserted by Valerie Leftwich, one of Christeson's two trial attorneys. At the hearing on the motion, Leftwich explained that several years ago she had represented Michael Gibbs, whom the state had endorsed as a witness, in an unrelated matter and that she was in possession of confidential information regarding that representation. Ms. Leftwich believed that a conflict of interest existed under the Rules of Professional Conduct because she might be forced to disclose the confidential information if the state called Gibbs as a witness and she had to cross-examine him. Alternatively, Ms. Leftwich believed that if the defense needed to call Gibbs, the state would be able to cross-examine him to show that he testified favorably for Christeson because of his connection with Ms. Leftwich. In response to these concerns, the prosecutor stipulated on the record that Gibbs would not be called as a witness for the state. However, one of the state's penalty phase witnesses, Robert Milner, brought Gibbs into the case, at least tangentially, by testifying that while he was in jail with Christeson and Gibbs, he overheard Christeson tell Gibbs, Of course I did, but they ain't got shit on me. The statement went unchallenged, although it was unclear whether Christeson was referring to the murders, the jail house sodomy, or some other misconduct. In any event, Christeson also claims that Ms. Leftwich's conflict prevented her from calling Gibbs to dispute that the statement was made. As a preliminary matter, the state, citing State v. Owsley, 959 S.W.2d 789, 793 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 882, 119 S.Ct. 191, 142 L.Ed.2d 156 (1998); State v. Giaimo, 968 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo. App.1998); and State v. Mitchell, 41 S.W.3d 574 (Mo.App.2001), argues that this Court need not address the claim because it is actually a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is not reviewable on direct appeal. Owsley involved a similar claim that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motions to dismiss his counsel because there was an alleged conflict between the defendant and his lawyer. Owsley, 959 S.W.2d at 792. This Court held that the claim of conflict should have been presented in a Rule 29.15 motion, but only to the extent that the claim was based on counsel's alleged misconduct at trial. Id. at 793. Conversely, to the extent that the claim of conflict was based on the trial court's actual ruling on the motion, the claim was properly brought as part of the direct appeal. Neither Giaimo nor Mitchell holds differently. Here, Christeson's claim is not based on counsel's alleged misconduct or ineffectiveness at trial, but rather trial court error in failing to grant the motion to withdraw, and ineffective assistance of counsel is only an alleged potential consequence of the trial court error. On the merits, the determination of whether defense counsel should be allowed to withdraw is a matter within the discretion of the trial court, and this Court's review is for abuse of that discretion. State v. Hornbuckle, 769 S.W.2d 89, 96 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 860, 110 S.Ct. 171, 107 L.Ed.2d 128 (1989). Judicial discretion is abused when the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration. State v. Gardner, 8 S.W.3d 66, 73 (Mo. banc 1999). Christeson relies on two provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.6(a) and Rule 4-1.7(b), to argue that Ms. Leftwich had a conflict of interest. Rule 4-1.6(a), states in pertinent part that [a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation.... Rule 4-1.7(b) states in pertinent part 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. These rules, however, are not implicated in this situation. Because the state agreed not to call Gibbs as a witness, Ms. Leftwich had no need to cross-examine him with confidential information she may have obtained from the earlier representation. Furthermore, there is simply no record that any of the supposed confidential information was even potentially relevant to Christeson's case. The alleged conflict based on Gibbs' availability as a defense witness fares no better. It is pure speculation that Gibbs would have testified favorably for Christeson, and the defense made no offer of proof to that effect. Assuming Gibbs would have so testified, the argument that the State might gain some counter advantage by cross-examining Gibbs to suggest that his testimony favored Christeson because of Gibbs' relationship with Ms. Leftwich is tenuous, at best. The defense fails to explain how or why that prior relationship could have influenced Gibbs' testimony, much less that the state would have pursued such a seemingly pointless matter on cross-examination. In the absence of a real, rather than perceived, conflict of interest, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw.
Christeson claims that the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance based on the state's endorsement of Carter as a witness only thirteen days before trial. Due to the late endorsement, Christeson alleges that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to investigate and challenge Carter's testimony and to interview doctors who evaluated Carter's mental health. The decision to grant a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Wolfe, 13 S.W.3d 248, 261 (Mo. banc 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 845, 121 S.Ct. 114, 148 L.Ed.2d 70 (2000). Reversal is warranted only upon a very strong showing that the court abused its discretion and prejudice resulted. State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 465 (Mo. banc 1999). A continuance for counsel's trial preparation is not warranted when counsel had adequate time to prepare. Id. Carter's identity and involvement were known to defense counsel for almost a year and a half before the trial began. His confession was provided fourteen months before trial. Defense counsel conducted a more than six hour long deposition of Carter two weeks before he testified. At trial, defense counsel called two of Carter's psychological evaluators and questioned them in detail about Carter's mental health issues. Christeson has not shown what evidence he would have developed had a continuance been granted; thus, he has not made the required strong showing of prejudice. See State v. Thompson, 985 S.W.2d 779, 785 (Mo. banc 1999); Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 465.