Opinion ID: 2508188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 34

Heading: failure to inform the trial court of a conflict of interest

Text: ISSUE (15). Whether there was an actual conflict of interest between Petitioner and his attorneys which adversely affected counsel's performance in violation of the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Petitioner claims defense counsel assigned to him by the Pierce County Department of Assigned Counsel (DAC) was ineffective because there was an actual conflict of interest between counsel and the State's witness, Shelbey B. Johnson. We rejected in Petitioner's direct appeal a similar argument that the trial court erred in not inquiring into a potential conflict of interest arising out of possible prior representation of Mr. Johnson by the DAC. We found [t]here is nothing in the record to establish that the DAC represented the State's witness, [Shelbey B. Johnson], in the past and that [t]here is merely a reference to possible past DAC representation of a potential State witness. [327] We have already concluded that Petitioner could not establish that any alleged conflict of interest adversely affected the performance of his lawyers. [328] Petitioner cannot establish that he was prejudiced at any rate. A personal restraint petition may not raise an issue that was raised and rejected on direct appeal unless the interests of justice require relitigation of the issue. [329] The interests of justice allow relitigation of an issue raised on direct appeal if there has been an intervening change in the law or some other justification for not raising a crucial point or argument on direct appeal. [330] A personal restraint petition should not simply reiterate issues finally resolved at trial and on direct review. [331] The petition must instead raise new points of fact and law. [332] Petitioner raises no new points of fact or law and simply attempts to convert an argument previously made into a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He may not raise the conflict of interest issue in this personal restraint petition because we have previously ruled on it.