Keyes v. State, 95 So. 3d 280

Keyes was convicted of first-degree murder of Mark Weiner and sought postconviction relief, which the trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
Keyes challenged trial counsel’s alleged conflict of interest because several state witnesses were former clients of the public defender’s office, which had represented them.
The office withdrew from representing the witnesses before trial and obtained waivers, but counsel did not obtain a waiver from Keyes nor raise the conflict at trial.
The defense also challenged counsel’s failure to request an involuntary intoxication instruction and object to the medical examiner’s testimony about the cause of death being based on statements rather than physical evidence.
Evidence included Keyes’ admissions to Melissa and jailmates, prior threats toward the victim, financial use of the victim’s assets after the murder, and statements demonstrating a fight or choke hold.
The medical examiner initially could not determine the cause of death, later attributing it to compression of the neck after review of witness statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conflict of interest affecting performance	Keyes argues an actual conflict existed and affected counsel’s performance.	State contends no actual conflict arose or it did not impair performance.	Keyes failed to show an actual conflict adversely affected performance.
Voluntary intoxication defense instruction	Counsel should have requested involuntary intoxication instruction as strategic grounds were reasonable.	Evidence showed Keyes was not intoxicated; instruction would not have helped.	No deficient performance or prejudice; instruction not warranted.
Objection to medical examiner’s causation testimony	Counsel should have objected to testimony depending on hearsay and not physical evidence.	Counsel cross-examined to secure admission and argued death as an accident; no prejudice shown.	Strategy reasonable; no substantial likelihood of different verdict.

Hunter v. State, 817 So.2d 786 (Fla.2002) (actual conflict must adversely affect performance)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S.1980) (required showing of an actual conflict and adverse effect)
Quince v. State, 732 So.2d 1059 (Fla.1999) (conflict-of-interest framework applied)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice requirement)
Bouie v. State, 559 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1990) (imputation of conflicts of interest in public defenders’ offices)
Mungin v. State, 932 So.2d 986 (Fla.2006) (imputed conflict analyzed; awareness of representation matters)
Herring v. State, 730 So.2d 1264 (Fla.1998) (need for concrete showing of impaired interests)
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (S. Ct. 2011) (prejudice standard in Strickland applied to reasonable doubt)
State v. Larzelere, 979 So.2d 195 (Fla.2008) (mixed question standard; appellate review of factual and legal conclusions)