Okeani v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
| Decision Date | 28 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-SA,1 |
| Citation | 178 Ariz. 180,871 P.2d 727 |
| Parties | Amaechi OKEANI, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, The Honorable Steven D. Sheldon, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, Richard M. ROMLEY, Real Party in Interest. 93-0159. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This is a special action review from the trial court's order denying defense counsel's motion to withdraw from the representation of defendant. We previously accepted jurisdiction and granted relief, with an opinion to follow. This is that opinion.
Deputy Maricopa County Public Defender Scott Halverson represented defendant, who was charged with one count of sexual assault, a class 2 felony. After learning that Deputy Public Defender Terri Shaw represented the victim of the alleged assault in an unrelated juvenile matter, Halverson obtained a copy of the police report in the victim's juvenile file from Shaw. Halverson intended to use the juvenile charge to impeach the alleged victim at trial.
Halverson notified the trial court that the Maricopa County Public Defender's Office represented both defendant and the alleged victim. In response, the trial court ordered Halverson to return the police report and refrain from discussing the case with Shaw. Because the trial court barred Halverson from discussing the case with Shaw, Halverson was unable to determine whether the juvenile matter was finally adjudicated.
Halverson then filed a motion to withdraw from representation of defendant, claiming conflict of interest. The trial court denied the motion and defendant petitioned this court for extraordinary relief.
We accepted jurisdiction of this special action because defendant had no equally plain, speedy and adequate remedy by appeal. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. ("A.R.S.") section 13-4033 provides that a criminal defendant may appeal only from:
(1) a final judgment of conviction;
(2) an order denying a motion for new trial or denying a motion for an arrest of judgment, or from an order made after judgment which affects the substantial rights of a party;
(3) an illegal or excessive sentence.
In this case, defendant seeks relief from an order denying his attorney's motion to withdraw from representation due to a conflict of interest. This is a non-appealable order suitable for special action review. See Rodriguez v. State, 129 Ariz. 67, 628 P.2d 950 (1981).
Because decisions on motions to withdraw are left to the discretion of the trial court, Agraan v. Superior Ct., 4 Ariz.App. 141, 418 P.2d 161 (1966), we will overturn such decisions only when the trial court has abused its discretion, State v. Gottsfield, 171 Ariz. 195, 829 P.2d 1241 (App.1992). This is such a case.
The trial court was required to permit withdrawal because the Public Defender's Office could not ethically represent both defendant and the alleged victim. Ethical Rule 1.7, Rule 42, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, states the general rule governing conflicts of interest:
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) The lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implication of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
The Public Defender's representation of defendant would have been "directly adverse" to its representation of the alleged victim. Halverson was bound to zealously represent his client, see ER 1.3, cmt., including impeachment of a victim witness. Yet because the victim was also a client of the Public Defender's Office, fulfilling the duty to defendant would have adversely affected another client of the same office. Conversely, protecting the victim from impeachment would have injured the defendant. This is clearly a conflict of interest from which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKinley
...is not equivalent to a firm).Other courts apply an automatic-imputation rule to public defenders. See, e.g., Okeani v. Super. Ct., 178 Ariz. 180, 871 P.2d 727, 729 (1993) ( “The conflict of interest is not alleviated by the fact that defendant and the victim were represented by different la......
-
State v. Jones
...overturn a trial court's decision on a motion to withdraw only if the trial court abused its discretion. Okeani v. Superior Court, 178 Ariz. 180, 181, 871 P.2d 727, 728 (App.1993). In this case, the trial court acted well within its discretion. First, no conflict of interest developed in th......
-
State v. Tucker
...of counsel for abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 185 Ariz. 471, 482, 917 P.2d 200, 211 (1996) (citing Okeani v. Superior Court, 178 Ariz. 180, 181, 871 P.2d 727, 728 (App.1993)). ¶ 24 In Jones, this court examined whether the trial court wrongly refused to grant a withdrawal motion by de......
-
Osterkamp v. Browning
...and addressing, inter alia, whether child party entitled to independent counsel and counsel of choice); Okeani v. Superior Court, 178 Ariz. 180, 181, 871 P.2d 727, 728 (App.1993) (finding order denying counsel's motion to withdraw proper subject for special action review). Second, even assu......