Court Opinion

ID: 9691252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:18:54.586765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:14.058018
License: Public Domain

Justice KEYES,
dissenting.
Justice HIGLEY concurring. Justices ALCALA and BLAND join Part II of Justice HIGLEY’s concurring opinion.
Part I
I reluctantly concur in the majority’s opinion because I believe that the opinion accurately reflects.the current law as applied to the facts in this case. I do not, however, think that the laws of the State of Texas adequately protect a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel when such defendant’s attorney is subject to a potential or actual conflict of interest. In such cases, I believe that, as required under Rule 44(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a pretrial hearing regarding the dangers of multiple representation should be mandatory.
In the present case, I agree with the majority that it was not apparent during the guilt-innocence phase of trial that an actual conflict adversely affected defense counsel’s performance. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 346-47, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1717, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). The numerous examples offered by the dissent as exhibiting conflict, when viewed dispassionately, as we must, could be attributed to everything from trial strategy to harmless error. We may not, post hoc, elevate potential, speculative conflicts of interest to the position of actual, significant conflicts. See James v. State, 763 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tex.Crim.App.1989)
I think, however, that during the punishment phase of the trial, defense counsel’s conduct raised the specter of an actual conflict of interest. The logic of the majority’s explanation concerning defense counsel’s common defense during the punishment phase eludes me. It is totally inconceivable to me how asking the jury to find appellant’s enhancements true, and Wheatfall’s enhancements not true, constitutes anything but advancing Wheatfall’s interests to the detriment of appellant’s interests. See Monreal v. State, 947 S.W.2d 559, 564-65 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). Defense counsel argued that appellant and Wheatfall should receive the same minimum sentence. Such a result was not even in the realm of possibility unless the jury found Wheatfall not guilty of at least one of his two enhancements. Defense counsel could have simply stopped there. Yet he went on to request that the jury find appellant guilty of her one enhancement, even though such a finding was not necessary to achieve his goal of equal sentencing. How could such an argument be anything but helpful to one client but harmful to another? See Perillo v. Johnson, 79 F.3d 441, 447 (5th Cir.1996).
Citing James, the dissent suggests that when the attorney is “placed on the horns of a dilemma” as to services for one client over another, an actual conflict exists and each client must be made aware of the conflict before the attorney may ethically proceed with the case. James, 763 S.W.2d at 779. While this is a correct statement regarding an attorney’s ethical responsibility, it does not accurately reflect the law *324regarding the trial court’s responsibility when anything but a clear and significant conflict arises during trial.
When, as here, a defendant does not object to dual representation at trial, the trial court generally has no affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict of interest exists. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 347, 100 S.Ct. at 1717. “Unless the trial court knows or reasonably should know that a particular conflict exists, the court need not initiate an inquiry.” Id. While a trial court does not always have an affirmative duty to inquire into the possibility of a conflict of interest, it does, however, have a duty to conduct a hearing once it has been alerted, and when it knows or should know, of an actual conflict of interest. Id. at 346-47, 100 S.Ct. at 1717-18; Ramirez v. State, 13 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism’d) (citing United States v. Greig, 967 F.2d 1018, 1022 (5th Cir.1992)); Garza v. State, 721 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1986, no pet.). In such a case, a trial court must hold a hearing to determine if the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to conflict-free counsel. U.S. v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272, 277 (5th Cir.1975); see also Ramirez, 13 S.W.3d at 487 n. 2.1 The purpose of this hearing is to ensure that the defendant (1) is aware that a conflict of interest exists; (2) realizes the potential hazards to her defense by continuing with such counsel under the onus of the conflict; and (3) is aware of her right to obtain other counsel. Greig, 967 F.2d at 1022. Such a hearing is commonly referred to as a “Garcia hearing.”
The trial court’s brief, initial inquiry as to the defendants’ willingness to be represented jointly did not constitute a Garcia hearing. I reiterate, however, that, in Texas, no state court is required to hold a Garcia hearing prior to trial. A hearing is required only when a judge knows or should reasonably know of an actual conflict. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 346-47,100 S.Ct. at 1717-18.
In the instant case, I am not willing to hold that the trial court should have alerted to a conflict during the punishment phase of the trial and stopped the proceedings for a Garcia hearing. The defense attorney did not directly ask for the disparate treatment of his two clients, but instead instructed the jury to sign the first page of the verdict form for appellant (finding her enhancement true) and to sign the second page for Wheatfall (finding his enhancements not true). Even our careful reading of the record did not initially reveal the disparity. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the trial court erred by not holding a hearing.
Part II
The issues in this case regarding dual representation could have been avoided by a proper pretrial admonishment. Thus, I contend that the law of this State should require the same pretrial inquiry that is required under federal law. It is highly impractical to require a trial court, along with the other rigorous responsibili*325ties of conducting a fair trial, to be constantly on the lookout for the surfacing of some evidence of conflict of interest. Such a requirement puts the trial court in the position of continuously second-guessing a defense counsel’s strategy, which is a clear impediment to impartiality.
The requirement of a pretrial hearing with respect to dual or multiple representation has been the practice under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for over two decades.2 Rule 44(c), added to the Federal Rules in 1980, provides as follows:
Whenever two or more defendants have been jointly charged to Rule 8(b) or have been joined for trial pursuant to Rule 1.3, and are represented by the same retained or assigned counsel or assigned counsel who are associated in the practice of law, the court shall promptly inquire with respect to such joint representation and shall promptly advise each defendant of the right to the effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation. Unless it appears there is good cause to believe no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the court shall take such measures as may be appropriate to protect each defendant’s right to counsel.
Fed.R.CRIM.P. 44(c).
The notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules illustrate the necessity for a rule regarding joint representation. Notes of THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1979 amendment, Fed. R.CRIm.P. 44(c). The Committee acknowledges that avoiding a conflict of interest is, in the first instance, a responsibility of the attorney. See id. They state, however, that “it by no means follows that the inquiry provided for by rule 44(c) is unnecessary.” Id. The Committee reasons that “even the most diligent attorney may be unaware of facts giving rise to a potential conflict.” Id. (citing United States v. Carrigan, 543 F.2d 1053, 1058 (2d Cir.1976) (Lumbard, J., concurring)). In addition, they point out that the rule will prove “salutory, not only to the administration of justice and the appearance of justice, but the cost of justice,” avoiding, inter alia, habeas corpus petitions, petitions for new trials, appeals and occasionally retrials. Id. (citing United States v. Mari, 526 F.2d 117, 119 (2d. Cir.1975) (Oakes, J., concurring)). Finally, the Committee points out that Rule 44(c) does not specify what type of hearing should be held, leaving this within the court’s discretion. Id. Nevertheless, the Committee points to Garcia as “[spelling] out in significant detail what should be done to assure an adequate waiver.” Id.
Rule 44(c), accompanied by the Committee’s commentary, offers specific and detailed instruction regarding implementation of the rule. Texas law already requires a Garcia hearing, albeit only when an obvious and actual conflict arises during trial. The incorporation of a Rule 44(c) type requirement would impose little burden, if any, on our trial courts, which are already required under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 1.051(g) to conduct a comprehensive pretrial hearing when a defendant desires to waive his or her right to counsel. Moreover, such a *326rule would relieve trial courts of the more onerous burden of maintaining heightened vigilence during trial to guard against the appearance of an “actual” conflict of interest. The State of Texas would best be served by incorporating an equivalent rule in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Part III
Conclusion
As can be inferred by the opening paragraph of my concurrence, I am highly troubled by this case. Defense counsel was, indeed, placed on the horns of a dilemma when his motion to suppress failed. The trial court was never offered a clear opportunity to ascertain whether a conflict of interest existed. Had appellant been adequately advised regarding the dangers inherent in dual representation, would she have requested separate counsel? I do not know, but she should have had the opportunity. I am convinced that it is time that Texas law related to a single lawyer’s representation of multiple criminal defendants align itself with the more prudent and equitable federal standard. A Garcia type pretrial hearing informing defendants of the inherent risks of dual or multiple representation would, in the future, avoid the problems existing in this case, as well as serve to equally protect judges, attorneys, and defendants from hazardous pitfalls in similar situations.

. The right to conflict-free counsel may be waived, but for that waiver to be effective, the record must affirmatively demonstrate that the waiver was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Ex parte Prejean, 625 S.W.2d 731, 733 (Tex.Crim.App.1981); Ramirez v. State, 13 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. dism’d) (citing United States v. Greig, 967 F.2d 1018, 1022 (5th Cir.1992)). For the waiver to be valid, it "must be made with an apprehension of the nature of the charges, the statutory offenses included within them, the range of allowable punishments thereunder, possible defenses to the charges and circumstances in mitigation thereof, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter.” U.S. v. Garcia, 517 F.2d 272, 277-78 (5th Cir.1975).

. Justice Brennan in his concurring opinion in Cuyler, published six months prior to the addition of Rule 44(c), argued that a mandatory pretrial hearing was "necessary since it is usually the case that defendants will not know what their rights are or how to raise them.” Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 352, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1720, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980) (Brennan, J., concurring). In addition, he considered it especially "true of the defendant who may not be receiving the effective assistance of counsel as a result of conflicting duties owed to other defendants.” Id.