132 Conn. App. 780
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Felipe DaSilva and codefendants were arrested in April 2007 and charged with burglary and larceny among other offenses.
- Montesi, from the Waterbury public defender's office, was appointed to represent DaSilva on three files in July 2007; she later learned her office had represented a codefendant.
- DaSilva pled guilty under the Alford doctrine on August 23, 2007, following plea negotiations; Montesi disclosed the potential conflict at sentencing.
- At sentencing, the court canvassed DaSilva about waiving any potential conflict; DaSilva affirmed his decision to proceed with Montesi's representation.
- After release, DaSilva was arrested for a separate offense; he pled guilty and was sentenced to six months concurrent with his original sentence.
- In June 2009, DaSilva filed a habeas petition alleging Montesi had a potential/conflict of interest and that waivers and canvass were improper; the habeas court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court adequately protect the Sixth Amendment? | DaSilva argues the inquiry into the potential conflict was insufficient. | DaSilva's contention is unsupported; the inquiry was appropriate given the circumstances. | Sufficient inquiry; not reversible given no actual conflict and waiver. |
| Was the waiver of the potential conflict valid? | DaSilva contends the waiver was not knowing and intelligent and not adequately explained. | Waiver was knowing and intelligent based on circuit record and DaSilva's responses. | Waiver valid; conducted in a manner sufficient under the circumstances. |
| Did Montesi adequately advise of risks and obtain consent despite potential conflict? | Montesi failed to meet ethical/constitutional standards, possibly misapplying rule 1.7. | Even if Montesi misconstrued rule 1.7, DaSilva had enough information to knowingly waive. | Montesi adequately advised; Sixth Amendment rights satisfied. |
| Should rule 1.7 be the controlling standard for evaluating Sixth Amendment violation? | Rule 1.7 should govern the Sixth Amendment analysis. | Ethical standards inform but do not control Sixth Amendment analysis; loyalty remains paramount. | Rule 1.7 is informative but not controlling; rights satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Drakeford, 261 Conn. 420 (2002) (trial court may rely on counsel's representation about conflict)
- State v. Barnes, 99 Conn.App. 203 (2007) (requires inquiry when conflict exists; examine trial court canvass)
- Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112 (1991) (Sixth Amendment and loyalty; two-pronged test)
- State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (1998) (conflicts of interest arise from physician duties to client)
- State v. Parrott, 262 Conn. 276 (2003) (voir dire conflict scenarios and court's inquiry duties)
- Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn.App. 568 (2005) (conflict-of-interest standard and waiver considerations)
- Williams v. Williams, 203 Conn. 159 (1987) (waiver timing and informed consent considerations)