Mannon v. State, 13110
| Decision Date | 27 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 13110,13110 |
| Citation | 645 P.2d 433,98 Nev. 224 |
| Parties | Robert MANNON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
J. Gregory Damm, State Public Defender, Carson City, for appellant.
Richard H. Bryan, Atty. Gen., Carson City, and Peter L. Knight, Dist. Atty., Nye County, Tonopah, for respondent.
Appellant was charged with furnishing marijuana to both his son and the son of his girlfriend Lois Aguirre. NRS 453.321(2). At trial, Mannon was represented by an attorney who had been appointed to represent Aguirre in another court on an unrelated charge. 1 On the night of the first trial day, Aguirre called this attorney and admitted that she had been the one who had furnished the marijuana to the boys. During the conversation, Aguirre asked the attorney "not to tell" because she was afraid Mannon would be angry with her for her disclosure. The attorney remained silent and, at the conclusion of trial the next day, the jury found Mannon guilty.
Before sentencing, counsel made a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. NRS 176.515. Aguirre testified to the above facts at the hearing on the motion after waiving relevant privileges. 2 The motion was subsequently, and correctly, denied. Aguirre's testimony did not constitute newly discovered evidence within the meaning of the statute since counsel had timely knowledge of its existence. Burton v. State, 84 Nev. 191, 437 P.2d 861 (1968); see McLemore v. State, 94 Nev. 237, 577 P.2d 871 (1978).
Mannon now argues that his trial attorney's conflicting duties operated to deny him his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. We agree.
Upon learning of Aguirre's involvement, counsel was presented with a conflict between her obligation to protect the confidentiality of Aguirre's statement and her obligation to defend Mannon vigorously and completely. Counsel was under an ethical obligation to inform the court immediately that a conflict had arisen which necessitated her withdrawal. ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 5-105, EC 5-15 (1976). See NRS 175.383. Had counsel withdrawn from Mannon's case, Aguirre may well have repeated her admission to Mannon's subsequent attorney, who would have had no duty to withhold the information from the court.
The above facts demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest prohibited Mannon's attorney from providing him with adequate assistance. As a result, no showing of actual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State
...following direct appeal, we have considered such claims relating to conflicts of interest on direct appeal. See, e.g., Mannon v. State, 98 Nev. 224, 645 P.2d 433 (1982). Hayes is correct that there were both potential and actual conflicts of interest in counsel Carl Martillaro's joint repre......
-
Williams v. State
...v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 692 (1984) (same); Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 166, 175 (2002) (same); Mannon v. State, 98 Nev. 224, 226, 645 P.2d 433, 434 (1982) (framing claim as "his trial attorney's conflicting duties operated to deny him his sixth amendment right to effective as......
-
State v. Fenton
... ... attorney-client confidentiality concerns with a former ... client. Mannon v. State, 98 Nev. 224, 225-26, 645 ... P.2d 433, 433-34 (1982). In both circumstances, the ... underlying conflict of interest caused "an ... ...
-
Clark v. State
...prejudice to the defendant. Strickland; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980); Mannon v. State, 98 Nev. 224, 226, 645 P.2d 433, 434 (1982). This exception is based, in part, on the difficulty in measuring the effect of representation tainted by conflicting ......