Court Opinion

ID: 9467786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:56:51.199801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:32.055767
License: Public Domain

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. I do not believe that the record before us is sufficient to show whether counsel’s former representation of Romero created a conflict of interest. Accordingly, *844I would reverse and remand for an eviden-tiary hearing.
I agree with the majority that no actual conflict of interest is shown bn the present record. However, I think it impossible to conclude from this record that counsel’s former representation of Romero did not create a conflict. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, an evidentiary hearing is required “[ujnless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” In United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1980), we stated that this standard “is essentially whether the movant has ‘stated a claim on which relief could be granted’ ... or, where affidavits have been submitted, whether summary judgment for the government is proper.” Id. at 1194 (quoting Moore v. United States, 571 F.2d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 1978)).
Here, it is certainly possible that counsel possessed privileged information which affected his examination of Romero and his conduct of the case generally. Perhaps Romero would have been called as an adverse witness at trial, or perhaps different questions would have been asked at the preliminary hearing. It is true that appellant’s allegations are not as specific as those in Hearst, but such a lack of specificity is to be expected from someone in appellant’s position. Until and unless appellant is given an evidentiary hearing, the details of counsel’s relationship with Romero will necessarily remain a mystery. We should not deny him a hearing simply because his allegations regarding counsel’s conflict of interest are somewhat general.
The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed “the duty of the court[s] to recognize the possibility of a disqualifying conflict of interest,” Wood v. Georgia,-U.S. -,-, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 1104, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981). Wood involved an attorney who had been hired and paid by the defendants’ employer, whose interests might not have been identical to those of the defendants. The Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing, stating that “[o]n the record before us, we cannot be sure whether counsel was influenced in his basic strategic decisions by the interests of the employer who hired him.” -U.S. at-, 101 S.Ct. at 1103. We cannot be sure here that counsel’s strategic decisions were not influenced by his prior representation of Romero. I would therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.