186 Conn. App. 320
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Jean Barjon and codefendant Jacques Louis were charged with first‑ and second‑degree robbery and related conspiracy counts arising from a supermarket robbery; evidence tied multiple conspirators to the incident.
- Attorney Eroll Skyers jointly represented Barjon and co‑defendant Tinesse Tilus throughout pretrial proceedings.
- The case was placed on the trial list after plea negotiations did not produce a disposition on earlier dates; Barjon initially pleaded not guilty.
- On October 2, 2012, Barjon sought to enter an Alford plea to one count; during the plea canvass the court declined to accept the plea after Barjon minimized the risk of conviction and said he was pleading to help a friend.
- At that point Skyers informed the court on the record that he had warned both clients about a potential conflict and that, if no plea resolved the case, he would likely have to withdraw; the court granted Skyers’ motion to withdraw and continued the case for new counsel.
- Barjon later proceeded to trial with new counsel, was convicted on all counts, and appealed asserting the trial court erred by not earlier inquiring into the potential conflict of interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Barjon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had a duty to inquire earlier into a potential conflict from joint representation | No earlier duty existed absent an indication of an actual conflict; courts may rely on silence and counsel’s ethical obligations | Court should have inquired once plea discussions broke down and case went on trial list because joint representation posed a conflict | Court held no duty to inquire earlier—no record indication an actual conflict existed before plea canvass; joint representation alone insufficient to trigger inquiry |
| Whether an actual conflict existed that required reversal under Cuyler v. Sullivan | N/A (State) | Barjon argued his willingness to make self‑damaging statements to benefit Tilus showed an actual conflict that prejudiced his defense | Court held any potential conflict was avoided when plea was rejected, Skyers withdrew, and defendant received new counsel; Barjon failed to show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance |
| Whether the court erred by assuming conflict issues were resolved without further inquiry | Court: trial courts may rely on silence and counsel’s duties absent special circumstances | Barjon: court unreasonably assumed matters resolved when case moved to trial list | Court affirmed that reliance on silence and absence of specific notice is permissible; no special circumstances shown |
| Whether post‑withdrawal lack of preparation by successor counsel raises a trial court error claim | State: such claims concern counsel performance, not trial court action on conflict inquiry | Barjon: successor counsel lacked adequate time to investigate after Skyers withdrew | Court declined to address ineffective assistance by successor counsel on direct appeal because record contained no ruling by trial court on that issue; claim not properly before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (joint representation not per se unconstitutional; potential efficiencies exist)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (to obtain reversal absent timely objection, defendant must show actual conflict that adversely affected lawyer’s performance)
- United States v. Perez, 325 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2003) (distinguishes actual versus potential conflicts of interest)
- State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (Conn. 1998) (discusses burden and standards for showing conflict and prejudice)
- State v. Gaines, 257 Conn. 695 (Conn. 2001) (trial courts may rely on silence; counsel must promptly notify court of conflicts)
- State v. Parrott, 262 Conn. 276 (Conn. 2003) (direct‑appeal review of court actions vs. counsel performance)