Court Opinion

ID: 9646223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 12:53:08.979248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:35.722926
License: Public Domain

Barney, J.
(concurring) John Shuttle’s petition for release under writ of habeas corpus is entirely premised on an alleged conflict of interest on the part of counsel he selected to represent him. This conflict took the form of simultaneous representation by this same counsel of some co-respondents. The majority opinion states, and I agree, that it is the law that this issue is waived by a voluntary plea of guilty. Martin v. United States, 256 F.2d 345, 349, cert. den. 358, U.S. 921. Such a plea was entered here and, in my view, completely governs this case.
Solely in connection with a belief that a petitioner might be bound to demonstrate prejudice from dual representation, evidence was presented on behalf of this petitioner outlining a great deal of the investigatory background of the case and the motivations of his attorney. Since the whole issue of conflicting representation was disposed of by the guilty plea, this matter became wholly irrelevant.
I am concurring here separately only for the purpose of making clear my position that these waived issues are not now available under this habeas corpus petition. My only concern is that their treatment in the majority opinion might lend an illusion of validity to these claims, or give the impression that, in some fashion, they tended to overcome the consequence of the guilty plea.