JEFFERSON (BRANDON) VS. STATE
2017 NV 105
| Nev. | 2017Background
- Brandon Jefferson, charged with multiple counts of sexual offenses against a minor, sent a letter to the State Bar complaining about one of his appointed public defenders days before his original trial date.
- Jefferson also moved in district court to replace counsel citing poor communication and inadequate investigation; the motion did not mention the Bar complaint and was denied as untimely.
- Trial was delayed about a year; Jefferson did not renew his request to replace counsel and the Bar complaint was not referenced again at trial.
- Jefferson was convicted on several counts and on direct appeal did not assert the Bar complaint as a basis for reversal of the counsel-denial ruling.
- In a postconviction habeas petition, Jefferson claimed the mere filing of the Bar complaint created a per se actual conflict of interest that rendered counsel constitutionally ineffective; the district court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mere filing of a Bar complaint by a defendant against his attorney creates a per se actual conflict of interest requiring presumptive prejudice under the Sixth Amendment | Jefferson: filing the Bar complaint created a per se actual conflict that rendered counsel ineffective, so prejudice should be presumed | State: mere filing of a Bar complaint does not itself create a per se Sixth Amendment conflict; must show adverse effect on counsel's performance | The court held the mere filing of a Bar complaint does not create a per se Sixth Amendment conflict and Jefferson failed to show any adverse effect; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes the two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (prejudice presumed for actual conflicts that adversely affect counsel's performance)
- Clark v. State, 108 Nev. 324, 831 P.2d 1374 (discusses conflict where attorney sued client for money damages)
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (counsel conflicts and right to conflict-free representation)
- State v. Michael, 778 P.2d 1278 (Ariz. Ct. App.) (holding Bar complaint alone did not demonstrate adverse effect)