Court Opinion

ID: 9466091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:05:35.68767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:32.650507
License: Public Domain

WINTER, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
The principal question we must decide is whether James Franklin O’Kelley, III was denied effective assistance of counsel by reason of the fact that, when he was convicted of armed robbery, his court-appointed lawyer was also appointed to represent a codefendant with divergent and conflicting interests. The majority holds that he was not. From the majority’s resolution of this question, I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority, however, that the other grounds advanced by O’Kelley for issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus are lacking in merit.
I.
Although O’Kelley had four codefendants, we need concern ourselves only with codefendant Michael Bryant Williams in deciding O’Kelley’s claim of denial of effective assistance of counsel since Williams was the only other defendant represented by the same lawyer.1 That lawyer was appointed first to represent O’Kelley; but when Williams also asked for counsel, the same lawyer was appointed to represent him since that lawyer knew him from defending him in other cases. According to the lawyer, the judge making the appointment directed the lawyer “to check and see if there was any conflict and see if I could not represent both of these defendants in these trials.” Accordingly, the lawyer went to the jail, saw both of them in the presence of each other, and testified that “they seemed to be very pleased that I was representing both of them.” The lawyer testified further that
the overall feeling was that all the defendants were going to stand together on these charges, that no one was going to take the stand to testify in his own be*60half, that that was already decided among them, and none of the defendants, especially Mr. O’Kelley and Mr. Williams because they were talking to me, wanted anything done during the course of the trial, or the course of their representation which would be detrimental to any of the other defendants.
The record is clear, however, that this feeling of solidarity on the part of O’Kelley, at least, was an uncounseled one. The lawyer testified that at no time were any suggestions to dissuade O’Kelley from this course of action made. Indeed, according to the lawyer’s testimony, O’Kelley’s course of strategy, i. e. “that no matter what I did in his behalf, it was not to be at the expense of anyone else that was being tried,” accorded with the lawyer’s own views. When asked if the lawyer agreed with O’Kelley’s attitude, the answer was:
Professionally and philosophically, even had he not asked me to do that, I would have made a professional determination to conduct his defense, or any defense, in that manner. I think it is counter-productive when a theory of a case is a joint venture, concurrent activity, aiding and abetting, which is what we had, to take pot shots as it was at any of the other Co-Defendants. I think that it is bad professionally.
It is thus not surprising that counsel neither considered nor conducted any separate investigation to see whether there was anything in the case which might serve as a basis for more favorable treatment of O’Kelley than of Williams. The record does not disclose that counsel ever reported counsel’s conclusions to the appointing judge, or that that court ever conducted any further investigation into the question of whether there was a conflict of interest between O’Kelley and Williams.
II.
The district court, which the majority affirms, found that the interests of O’Kelley and Williams diverged only with respect to sentencing but that there was no conflict between them with respect to their conviction. In my view, their interests did conflict and I think that O’Kelley is entitled to have his conviction set aside and to be tried anew.
From evidence adduced at the trial, it appears that the degree of culpability for commission of the crime on the part of O’Kelley was less than that on the part of Williams. Briefly stated, that evidence showed that in the late night hours of August 8, 1971, or in the early morning of August 9, 1971, the defendants Williams and Shue flagged down the automobile owned by and being driven by one James Erwin, in which one Robert Herrin was riding as a passenger. Erwin stopped the car, at which time Shue pulled a pistol on him and demanded that he and Williams be driven to Charlotte. Williams and Shue got in the back seat of Erwin’s car, and Erwin drove approximately 100 yards down the road to a telephone booth, where three other men, later identified as the defendants Wright, Capel and O’Kelley, entered the car. Erwin then drove to a gasoline service station, where he pulled in on the excuse that his car was overheating. Erwin got out to check the water, advising the service station attendant, one Johnny Bollinger, to call the police. Bollinger attempted to call the police, but the defendant Capel emerged from the car with his hand in his pocket, as if it were a gun, and told him to drop the phone. Bollinger did so, and he and Erwin then fled the area, while Herrin remained in the car with the defendants. Bollinger and Erwin heard gunshots, evidently fired by the defendant Wright, as they ran. Shortly thereafter, Herrin was permitted to leave the car. Erwin’s car was recovered some hours later. It had been incinerated and was substantially damaged.
In addition to the evidence that O’Kelley, unlike Williams, was not one of the original hijackers and that O’Kelley, unlike some of the other defendants, did not actually employ a weapon, O’Kelley, although he had a record of prior convictions, had been convicted for such nonviolent crimes as passing worthless checks, forgery and escape, while Williams had prior convictions for accessory *61after the fact of murder and several instances of breaking and entering or larceny. Moreover, Williams had testified in another trial before the instant case that he had employed a weapon in perpetrating an armed robbery to obtain a pistol.
None of the four other defendants indicated an intention to plead guilty; all went to trial and were convicted of armed robbery although acquitted of kidnapping. Because the prosecution was being required to prove its case against all and because O’Kelley, vis á vis Williams and some of the other defendants, was less culpable and had a less aggravated record of prior convictions, I would think that the Sixth Amendment required the lawyer to discuss with O’Kelley and advise him with regard to the possibility that O’Kelley would plead guilty and testify for the prosecution in exchange for the prosecution’s accepting a plea to a lesser offense or making a favorable sentencing recommendation. The Sixth Amendment requires effective counsel to demonstrate the “range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” Marzullo v. State of Maryland, 561 F.2d 540, 543 (4 Cir. 1977), cert. den., 435 U.S. 1011, 98 S.Ct. 1885, 56 L.Ed.2d 394 (1978). Certainly, on the facts of this case, that range of competence required counsel to explore “possible plea negotiations and the possibility of an agreement to testify for the prosecution, provided a lesser charge or a favorable sentencing recommendation would be acceptable.” Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 490, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1182, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978). Counsel’s failure to do so whether for “professional” or “philosophical” reasons, or from mere inattention or oversight, rendered counsel ineffective unless it can be said that O’Kelley waived representation of that nature. Id. at 483 n.5, 98 S.Ct. 1173.
III.
Waiver cannot be found on this record. While the record shows that O’Kelley was specific that he wished to go it alone, the record supports the district court’s finding that O’Kelley clearly did not waive his right to conflict-free counsel.2 Where I differ from the district court and the majority is that I do not think that the disabling conflict of interest was limited to sentencing. On the facts of the case, including the position of the other defendants and the criminal background of O’Kelley vis a vis Williams, I think that the conflict extended to the question of O’Kelley’s guilt or innocence, including the possibility of a plea bargain.3 Under such circumstances, I understand the law to be that O’Kelley is not required to demonstrate specific prejudice and that he is entitled to have his conviction voided and to be awarded a new trial. Holloway v. Arkansas, supra at 487-91, 98 S.Ct. 1173. This I would give him.

. The three other codefendants, Franklin DeWayne Wright, Larry Wayne Shue, and Billy Eugene Capel, also requested the appointment of counsel and three separate lawyers were appointed to represent them.

. Notwithstanding this finding, the majority seemingly invokes waiver in distinguishing this case from Holloway on the ground that here, unlike the facts in Holloway, the defendants made it clear that they wished to stand together and none wished to testify. 1 do not doubt that a defendant may waive his right to pursue a trial strategy possibly beneficial to him but deleterious to a codefendant, but there can hardly be waiver when counsel did not discuss with O’Kelley, either within or without the presence of Williams, the possibility of a separate strategy and the record does not otherwise show that O’Kelley was aware of that possibility. As the testimony shows, counsel was “professionally” and “philosophically” restricted from advising O’Kelley of his rights in this regard.

. O’Kelley’s present counsel contends that the divergence of the interests of O’Kelley and Williams manifested itself also in trial counsel’s inability and failure to advise O’Kelley about calling Williams as a witness, about testifying himself, about arguing to the jury the relative weakness of the prosecution’s case against O’Kelley as compared to Williams, and about offering evidence to explain away O’Kelley’s possession of a shotgun at the time that he was arrested. I do not consider these because I think that the ineffectiveness of counsel in the single instance that I have discussed is sufficient to warrant habeas relief.