JAMES EARL BLACKMON v. DAVID D. LEWIS
146 A.3d 1074
| D.C. | 2016Background
- Blackmon was retried in 2014 on sexual-abuse, kidnapping, burglary, and assault charges after this court ordered a new trial; he was convicted and sentenced to 34 years.
- Before the second trial the government had offered a plea recommending no more than 25 years; defense counsel Jason Downs erroneously advised Blackmon that rejecting the plea could not expose him to more than 34 years.
- On day one Downs disclosed the mistake and asked the court to appoint independent counsel to advise Blackmon about the plea; the judge appointed Michael Madden to advise only on plea options.
- Madden advised (and told the court) that Blackmon would have accepted the 25-year offer but the government declined to re-extend it; it offered a 34-year cap which Blackmon rejected and trial proceeded.
- Blackmon later sought a mistrial and new counsel claiming a conflict of interest and loss of confidence in Downs (and complaining about trial-strategy disagreements); the court denied those requests and convicted him.
Issues
| Issue | Blackmon's Argument | Government/Defense Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Downs’s mistaken plea advice created an actual conflict of interest requiring new counsel at trial | Downs’s error exposed him to sanctions/liability, creating divergent interests and a realistic risk he would compromise Blackmon’s trial representation | Trial court appointed independent counsel (Madden) to advise on plea; any remaining strategic disagreements are not a conflict; no evidence Downs’s trial conduct was compromised | No actual conflict at trial once Madden advised on plea; appointment resolved the conflict |
| Whether counsel’s conflict required a mid-trial evidentiary hearing under Cuyler | A hearing was needed to determine whether Downs’s interests adversely affected performance | The plea-specific conflict had been addressed; a Lafler-type hearing relates to post-conviction relief rather than an immediate trial hearing | No mid-trial hearing required; Lafler issues are for post-conviction proceedings if pursued |
| Whether trial counsel’s alleged incentives (to preserve reputation) affected trial strategy or performance | Downs had reason to "pull punches" (e.g., limited cross-examination) to avoid consequences of his error | Counsel changed strategy before the plea error, acted reasonably at trial, and actively raised Blackmon’s complaint to the court | Record shows no evidence counsel’s trial choices were driven by a conflict; strategic choices were reasonable |
| Whether the trial court had an affirmative duty to inquire further into counsel effectiveness/conflict | Court should have questioned and explained any potential conflict to Blackmon and secured a waiver or appointed new counsel | Court recognized the plea-related conflict and fulfilled its duty by appointing independent counsel for that discrete purpose; no other apparent conflict required inquiry | Court’s duty satisfied; no further inquiry or withdrawal of Downs was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (remedy framework when ineffective assistance in plea bargaining causes loss of a plea opportunity)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (Sixth Amendment violation requires showing counsel actively represented conflicting interests that adversely affected performance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Douglas v. United States, 488 A.2d 121 (D.C. 1985) (trial court’s duty to inquire when possibility of conflict appears)
- Veney v. United States, 738 A.2d 1185 (D.C. 1999) (definition of actual conflict where attorney and client interests diverge)