Jordan v. State
752 S.E.2d 538
S.C.2013Background
- Petitioner Richard G. Jordan was convicted of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and trafficking in methamphetamine after dual representation by counsel DePew, who simultaneously represented Summers, the source of the initial investigation.
- The investigation began when Summers, Jordan’s girlfriend, was identified as manufacturing methamphetamine; Summers became the focus of the investigation.
- Law enforcement placed video surveillance at Summers’ neighbor’s residence and monitored Jordan’s movements around the camper where Summers operated, leading to discovery of methamphetamine, paraphernalia, firearms, and a storage room with additional methamphetamine.
- DePew did not inform the court that he represented both Jordan and Summers and did not raise any conflict of interest at trial.
- Jordan challenged his conviction via post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to an actual conflict of interest from DePew’s concurrent representation of Summers.
- PCR court dismissed the PCR application, finding no actual conflict and noting purported waivers of conflicts were noncompliant with Rule 1.7(b)(4), RPC, SCACR; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review this ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did DePew’s concurrent representation create an actual conflict of interest? | Jordan asserts an actual conflict existed. | DePew contends there was no actual conflict established. | Yes, an actual conflict existed. |
| Did the actual conflict adversely affect DePew’s performance and require relief without showing prejudice? | Actual conflict affected representation; prejudice need not be shown. | Prejudice must be shown unless there is an adverse effect proved. | No separate prejudice required; conflict affected representation. |
| Was Jordan’s waiver of the conflict valid and knowing? | Waiver did not occur knowingly or intelligently. | Any waiver, if present, was valid as a defense to conflicts. | Waiver was not shown to be knowing and intelligent. |
| Did the PCR court err in denying relief based on the conflict? | Court should grant relief due to actual conflict and ineffective assistance. | Denial was proper absent proven prejudice or valid waiver. | PCR court erred; remand for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lomax v. State, 379 S.C. 93, 665 S.E.2d 164 (2008) (actual conflict requires adverse effect to constitute Sixth Amendment violation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345, 495 S.E.2d 768 (1998) (conflict of interest analysis and requirement of adverse effects)
- Duncan v. State, 281 S.C. 435, 315 S.E.2d 809 (1984) (conflict of interest in criminal defense must show adverse effects)
- Thomas v. State, 346 S.C. 140, 551 S.E.2d 254 (2001) (definition of actual conflict of interest and adversity of interests)
- Swartz, United States v., 975 F.2d 1042 (1992) (waiver must be knowing and intelligent regarding conflict)
- Hoffman v. Leeke, 903 F.2d 289 (1990) (requirement that waiver be knowing and intelligent)
- Langford v. State, 310 S.C. 357, 426 S.E.2d 793 (1993) (consequence of Rule 1.7 not binding on constitutionality; need for informed waiver)
- Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989) (PCR findings reviewed for probative evidence)
- Miller v. State, 379 S.C. 108, 665 S.E.2d 596 (2008) (limitations on third-party guilt evidence and related trial rulings)