Opinion ID: 780064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Michigan Appellate Courts' Decisions

Text: 34 The Michigan Court of Appeals found that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed inasmuch as the judge and prosecutor involved in counsel's case were not the same as defendant's[; therefore,] no actual conflict of interest has been shown. People v. Smith, No. 148757, slip op. at 1 (Mich.Ct.App. July 11, 1995) (unpublished per curiam ) (citing People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298, 521 N.W.2d 797 (1994)). 35 The Michigan Supreme Court also held that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed, opining as follows: 36 Defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights because his attorney was charged with a felony pending in the same county. Defendant asks that we presume a conflict of interest exists whenever an attorney is being prosecuted in the same county as a criminal defendant whom he represents. We decline to create such a rule and hold instead that in order to demonstrate that a conflict of interest has violated his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). 37 People v. Smith, 456 Mich. 543, 581 N.W.2d 654, 659 (1998) (footnote omitted). The court concluded that [i]n this case, defendant has cited no evidence to suggest that defense counsel actively lessened his defense as a result of his pending felony charge, nor do we find evidence of an actual conflict of interest on the record. To the contrary, defense counsel vigorously pursued his objections and presented a strong case. Id. at 660.