Opinion ID: 1191658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: joint representation of co-defendants

Text: Joint representation of co-defendants can be problemsome if a conflict status in some realistic fashion is indicated, but we do not find this to be that kind of case. The Goshen County-Torrington community is a rural farming area, and appellant was a native. It is beyond reasonable conception and our assumptive responsibility that appellant and his co-defendant Pugh were not knowledgeable about ownerships involved in the seven car incidents occurring in the two-day episodes. Getting into a vehicle a block from where it was initially taken for the purpose of using the vehicle for joyriding is hardly defensible under the purview of the statutory terminology. Additionally, the record reflects the opportunity given to appellant regarding any representation objection at court appearance: You are entitled to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the proceedings, either at your own expense, or if you are unable to afford an attorney, the Court may appoint one for you if you wish. Now, I was going to ask you if you have appeared before a justice of the peace, but I assume you both appeared but you waived your preliminary hearing; is that correct, Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Yes. THE COURT: And Mr. Reynoldson? MR. REYNOLDSON: Yes. THE COURT: Now, have you talked to your attorney, Mr. Moxley? MR. PUGH: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Reynoldson, have you? MR. REYNOLDSON: Yes. THE COURT: And are both of you satisfied with his representation of you up to this point? MR. PUGH: Yes. MR. REYNOLDSON: Yes.       THE COURT: Are you both making your plea after talking to your attorney? Mr. Reynoldson? MR. REYNOLDSON: Yes. THE COURT: Mr. Pugh? MR. PUGH: Yes. This court is disinterested in establishing a rule which minimizes caution in co-representation cases or, even with recognition of the limited resources of the public defender, which would not emphasize the importance of different counsel where any conflict in representation could be envisioned. Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357 (1938); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed.2d 680, reh. denied sub nom. (1942). Kretske v. United States, 315 U.S. 827, 62 S.Ct. 629, 86 L.Ed. 1222 (1942); Baty v. Balkcom, 661 F.2d 391 (5th Cir.1981); Kamisar, LaFave and Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure (5th ed. 1980); 3 Wharton's Criminal Procedure, § 417 at 132 (12th ed. 1975). In this case, however, there simply is nothing of record which reflects a disadvantage for the appellant which must be shown in order for the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim to succeed. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); Osborn v. Schillinger, 639 F. Supp. 610 (D.Wyo. 1986) (discussing same counsel when all defendants plead guilty); Oliver v. Wainwright, 782 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 313, 93 L.Ed.2d 287 (1986). See, however, Chavez v. State, Wyo., 604 P.2d 1341 (1979), cert. denied 446 U.S. 984, 100 S.Ct. 2967, 64 L.Ed.2d 841 (1980). It must be recognized by both criminal defendants and trial attorneys that the court is not obligated to assume the role of a defendant's counselor. State v. Gilnite, 202 Conn. 369, 521 A.2d 547 (1987). Appellant, in recognizing the objective standard of reasonableness and fundamental fairness, discusses persuasively that the possibility of a disparity and differential culpability in reasonable sentence existed. That consideration was amply addressed by the trial court in the 1983 modification of sentence with probation, which then afforded defendant minimal confinement. The argument possibly could have been more persuasive if probation was not given by the initial post-conviction sentence reduction. The Glasser, Cuyler, and Holloway type of prejudice is not demonstrable in this record. See Hill v. Lockhart, supra. Furthermore, under Wyoming criminal statutes, the accessory is subject to the same penalties as the principal. Section 6-1-201, W.S. 1977; Linn v. State, Wyo., 505 P.2d 1270, cert. denied sub nom. (1973). Lucas v. Wyoming, 411 U.S. 983, 93 S.Ct. 2277, 36 L.Ed.2d 959, reh. denied 412 U.S. 944, 93 S.Ct. 2780, 37 L.Ed.2d 405 (1973).