Opinion ID: 411267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Varon

Text: 7 The appellant now also contends that Mr. Varon suffered from a conflict of interest because he was actually retained to protect the interests of Mr. Pollack. There is no support in the record for this contention. In fact, Mr. Varon specifically denies it in a letter to appellant's appellate counsel. 3 The appellant's assertion here is that Mr. Varon was actually representing two clients--the appellant and Mr. Pollack. But there is no showing that the interests of the appellant and Mr. Pollack were different in any way. In fact, Mr. Pollack was not a co-defendant and was never indicted. 8 The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). In that opinion the Court discussed with approval its earlier ruling in Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), quoting: [u]ntil a defendant shows that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests, he has not established the constitutional predicate for his claim of ineffective assistance. 446 U.S. at 349-50, 100 S.Ct. at 1718-19. The Court held: [i]n order to demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. id., 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. at 1719. While there has been some argument concerning the exact meaning of adversely affected as used by the Court, see, e.g., Baty v. Balkcom, 661 F.2d 391 (5th Cir.1981); id. at 398, (Fay, J., concurring specially), there is no question that active representation of conflicting interests is required to establish a violation of Sixth Amendment rights. The mere suggestion (denied by Mr. Varon and unsupported by the evidence) by the appellant that Mr. Varon was actually hired by and loyal only to Mr. Pollack who was not even indicted cannot amount to actively representing conflicting interests. Further, there is no showing that even an active and conscious representation of Mr. Pollack by Mr. Varon would conflict with representation of the appellant. 4 9 We need not reach the question how much harm a defendant must show when there is an actual conflict of interest to prove that his Sixth Amendment rights have been violated, because we decide that there has been no active representation of conflicting interests by Mr. Varon. The possibility of conflict is insufficient to impugn a criminal conviction. Sullivan, supra, 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. at 1719. 10 The order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.