State v. Cox, 2355
| Decision Date | 28 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2355,2355 |
| Citation | 506 P.2d 1038,109 Ariz. 144 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Nick Forrest COX, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Louis A. Moore, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
John V. Riggs, Tempe, for appellant.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery, and grand theft auto. He was sentenced to from thirty years to life on the armed robbery count and to from ten to fifteen years on the burglary count, to run consecutively with the robbery count. In addition, he was sentenced to eight to ten years on the assault count and from eight to ten years on the grand theft count, both to run concurrently with the armed robbery sentence.
On appeal, defendant presents only one question: Was he denied the effective assistance of counsel when he and the codefendant, Gail Coulbourne, were both represented by the same public defender?
The facts necessary for consideration of defendant's appeal follow: Defendant Cox and Gail Coulbourne went to the Spur Motel in Flagstaff. Cox forcibly entered the motel unit of an elderly tourist couple and held a gun to the head of the woman, stating that it was a holdup. The couple was made to lie on the floor and Cox let Coulbourne into the room and gave her the gun. Cox bound and gagged the couple, took $65 and the car keys and both defendants drove off in the victims' automobile. They were spotted by a police officer later that night and arrested for grand theft auto.
Two months later Cox escaped from jail after brutally beating a guard. He was recaptured the next day near Flagstaff.
Throughout the entire proceedings from preliminary hearing through sentencing, Cox and his codefendant were represented by the same Coconino County Public Defender. They were at all times tried jointly. It is apparent from the record of the trial that counsel's representation was slanted to favor defendant Coulbourne at the expense of defendant Cox. Counsel had Coulbourne testify, but appellant did not take the stand in his own defense. Coulbourne's testimony was clearly damaging to Cox. Counsel made a motion to sever at the inception of the trial, but this motion was directed at preventing the adverse publicity surrounding Cox's escape from prejudicing Coulbourne's trial. $The following excerpts from defense attorney's closing argument demonstrate a genuine conflict of interest which denied defendant Cox his right to effective assistance of counsel:
'. . . She has got one person that she can rely on and she hooked up with a Bad joker,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duffy, 2 CA-CR 2018-0071
...Ariz. 423, 424-26, 803 P.2d 416, 417–19 (1990) ; State v. Davis , 110 Ariz. 29, 31, 514 P.2d 1025, 1027 (1973) ; State v. Cox , 109 Ariz. 144, 145, 506 P.2d 1038, 1039 (1973) ; State v. Bush , 108 Ariz. 148, 150, 493 P.2d 1205, 1207 (1972) ; State v. Belcher , 106 Ariz. 170, 170, 172, 472 P......
- State v. DeGrate
-
State v. Davis
...and complete representation which an attorney is under a duty to render and which the defendant is entitled to receive. State v. Cox, 109 Ariz. 144, 506 P.2d 1038 (1973). This court has many times considered cases in which a conflict of interest between jointly represented codefendants was ......