Pitting Client Against Client

A criminal defendant (“petitioner”) who was represented jointly along with her spouse in connection with drug charges established that counsel labored under a conflict of interest. Thus, the South Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly denied post-conviction relief:

At the PCR hearing, both plea counsel and Petitioner testified  that counsel spent more time preparing Husband’s case despite the fact that  Petitioner was pleading guilty to a majority of the charged offenses and faced  a more severe sentence. 

In terms of the conflict of interest, plea counsel acknowledged  that she discussed this issue with Husband, but could not recall specifically  talking to Petitioner about such a conflict.  Plea counsel also admitted that  she argued for leniency in Husband’s case and requested the plea judge  reconsider his sentence.  In contrast, plea counsel did not make these  arguments on behalf of Petitioner.  Moreover, Petitioner’s and Husband’s  interests were adverse to one another given Petitioner pleaded guilty to the  majority of the drug charges whereas Husband pleaded guilty to a single charge  of PWID marijuana within proximity of a school.  Significantly, plea counsel  stated at the plea proceeding that Husband was originally “charged with  everything,” but she “was able to get the solicitor who had the case at the  time to dismiss all of his cases.”  A review of the plea proceeding also  reveals that plea counsel argued for leniency on behalf of Husband by comparing  his more limited involvement in the crimes to that of Petitioner.  We believe  plea counsel’s approach essentially pitted Husband against Petitioner, which  was clearly detrimental to Petitioner’s interests.

Under the circumstances, the court held that the petitioner need not demonstrate prejudice in order to establish entitlement to relief. (Mike Frisch)