Opinion ID: 581143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was Christon Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel?

Text: 13 Christon claims that his petition for writ of habeas corpus should be granted because he was denied effective assistance of counsel during his plea. Specifically, he argues that, since the attorneys representing him were hired by his wife, and she stood to gain from the plea, the attorneys had a conflict of interest in the case. As Christon argues, the Sixth Amendment guarantees that all criminal defendants will have the right to the assistance of counsel, unhindered by a conflict of interest. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 355 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Thomas v. Municipal Court of the Antelope Valley Judicial Dist. of California, 878 F.2d 285, 288 (9th Cir.1989). However, the government argued and the district court agreed that Christon was represented by two competent attorneys at the hearing, and that these attorneys aided him in making a very rational decision to plead guilty in order to avoid potentially severe sentences and to escape further charges. 14 Based on the record in this case, we agree that Christon has not demonstrated that (1) his counsels' actions were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance, and (2) he was prejudiced by reason of counsels' actions. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-90 (1984). To the contrary, Christon secured the very tangible benefit of avoiding the death penalty or a sentence of life without possibility of parole. The record supports a finding that counsel acted in petitioner's best interest at all times. Thus, we find that the district court did not make a clear error in denying Christon's petition on this ground.