225 Cal. App. 4th 1129
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Harris challenged the denial of his nonstatutory motion to dismiss the information, contending he was denied effective assistance of conflict-free counsel at the preliminary hearing.
- Diaz, Harris’s attorney at the time, had himself been arrested on felony charges and was under prosecution by the same Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office that prosecuted Harris.
- The same arresting deputy, Busch, who testified at Harris’s preliminary hearing, had previously arrested Diaz and could be a witness against Diaz in his own case.
- Diaz’s status and potential conflicts were unknown to Harris at the time of the preliminary hearing but were known to Diaz, the arresting officer, and the People.
- The trial court denied dismissal and considered remand for a new preliminary hearing as a remedy; Harris sought relief via a writ in this court.
- The court ultimately held that the information must be dismissed because Harris was deprived of conflict-free counsel at a critical stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there an actual conflict of interest at the preliminary hearing? | Harris asserted an actual conflict due to Diaz’s prosecution and the witness’s prior arrest status. | People contended only an apparent conflict existed, not an actual one. | There was an actual conflict of interest. |
| Is a nonstatutory motion to dismiss appropriate for challenging a preliminary hearing deficiency? | Nonstatutory motion is proper where the rights at issue are substantial and not apparent from the transcript. | The issue could be addressed via other pretrial remedies; dismissal was not necessarily required. | Nonstatutory motion to dismiss the information was appropriate. |
| What is the proper remedy when a defendant is deprived of conflict-free counsel at the preliminary hearing? | Dismissal of the information is warranted to remedy denial of substantial rights. | Remand for a new preliminary hearing might suffice; dismissal was not the only remedy. | Dismissal of the information is the required remedy. |
| Does the potential Brady duty arise to disclose the attorney’s conflict? | Prosecutor’s failure to disclose the conflict violated Brady. | Issue not necessary to resolve given the ruling on conflict and remedy. | Court expresses no ruling on Brady duty in this decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Elliot, 54 Cal.2d 498 (Cal. 1960) (set aside information for denial of substantial right at preliminary hearing)
- Pompa-Ortiz, 27 Cal.3d 519 (Cal. 1980) (preliminary hearing irregularities reviewed for prejudice; remand possible)
- People v. Letner and Tobin, 50 Cal.4th 99 (Cal. 2010) (preservation of rights and prejudice standards related to pretrial challenges)
- People v. Konow, 32 Cal.4th 995 (Cal. 2004) (prejudice standards for challenges to preliminary hearing)
- People v. Doolin, 45 Cal.4th 390 (Cal. 2009) (conflict-free counsel right at trial and pretrial stages)
- State v. Cottle, 194 N.J. 449 (NJ 2008) (per se conflict when attorney under indictment in same county as client)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, 96 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. App. 2002) (conflicts may arise when attorney faces competing loyalties)
- Reilly v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 641 (Cal. 2013) (preliminary hearing prejudice standards and leakage of material facts)
- Balzano, 916 F.2d 1273 (7th Cir. 1990) (prejudice showing required for appeal where conflict raised pretrial)