People v. Hilton
| Decision Date | 26 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 8542,2 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Lee HILTON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Edward Lee Hilton, in pro. per.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and DANHOF, JJ.
Defendant and two others, Robert L. Bush and Samuel B. Brandon, were arrested and charged with breaking a safe with intent to commit larceny. M.C.L.A. § 750.531 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.799). At their joint non-jury trial all three defendants were represented by one attorney; Brandon by retainer, defendant and Bush by appointment. After the People had completed their proofs and rested, Bush and Brandon pleaded guilty of concealing stolen property valued at $100 or more. Their pleas were accepted. Trial continued against defendant Hilton who took the stand and denied any participation in the crime. The court found defendant guilty as charged.
Defendant claims that joint representation denied him effective assistance of counsel.
Sometime during the evening of September 2, 1965, the Imperial Carpet and Furniture Company in Flint was robbed of a safe, business machines, and post office substation supplies. The following morning Bush and Brandon were seen dumping a safe into Gilkey Creek. The safe was recovered and identified as the one taken from complainant's store. Defendant Bush and his wife were arrested in front of Brandon's home. Mrs. Brandon admitted the police into her home where office machines and post office substation supplies traced to complainant's store were found in the bedroom occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Bush. Defendant was implicated by Mr. and Mrs. Brandon.
Failure to appoint separate attorneys for indigent codefendants is not inherent error. Joint representation of codefendants becomes improper only when the interests of one defendant so conflict with the interests of other defendants that prejudice results from the joint representation. Glasser v. United States (1942), 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680; Fryar v. United States (C.A. 10, 1968), 404 F.2d 1071; People v. Thomas (1968), 14 Mich.App. 718, 165 N.W.2d 891; People v. Williams (1969), 19 Mich.App. 291, 172 N.W.2d 515; People v. Dockery (1969), 20 Mich.App. 201, 173 N.W.2d 726; People v. Bozeman (1969), 20 Mich.App. 266, 174 N.W.2d 2.
The record in this case indicates that defendant Hilton's interests conflicted with the interests of the other defendants and that prejudice to him resulted from joint representation.
Mrs. Brandon, wife of counsel's paying client, testified for the People that on the night of the burglary she heard noises in her kitchen, investigated, and saw Hilton and Bush attempting to open a safe. She further testified that her husband was upstairs asleep at the time. Defense counsel did not cross-examine Mrs. Brandon about what she had seen or about her husband's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Marshall
...that: 'it is inconceivable to this court that he could have been referring to anyone other than Sawyer'. Likewise, People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 182 N.W.2d 29 (1970), cited by defendant, is distinguishable. The claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not sufficiently shown herei......
-
People v. Osborn
...separate counsel for each codefendant. People v. Marshall, 53 Mich.App. 181, 189, 218 N.W.2d 847 (1974). People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 276, 182 N.W.2d 29 (1970). See also People v. Chacon, 69 Cal.2d 765, 73 Cal.Rptr. 10, 447 P.2d 106, 111 (1968). However, joint representation becomes ......
-
People v. Villarreal
...724, 234 N.W.2d 767, 770 (1975); People v. Marshall, 53 Mich.App. 181, 189-190, 218 N.W.2d 847, 852 (1974); People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 276, 182 N.W.2d 29, 30 (1970). This is because such relationships do not inevitably involve conflicts of interests. People v. Hilton, supra." Peopl......
-
People v. Jones
...unless the interests of one defendant so conflict with the interests of another defendant that prejudice results. People v. Hilton, 26 Mich.App. 274, 276, 182 N.W.2d 29 (1970). Such [64 MICHAPP 668] prejudice is shown where evidence of a confession of one defendant is admitted into evidence......