State v. Navarro
160 A.3d 1116
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Defendant Francisco Navarro and his identical twin Jose Navarro were jointly represented by a single public defender at a joint trial for attempted burglary in the first degree, threatening, and interfering with a police officer; Jose was additionally charged with assaulting a police officer.
- Navarro raised sixth amendment conflict-of-interest concerns, claiming the joint representation created conflicts that the court inadequately explored under Holloway v. Arkansas.
- During pretrial proceedings, counsel repeatedly stated no conflict existed; a May 29, 2014 colloquy raised concerns about a possible conflict if Navarro changed his plea, but the court found the conflict too speculative.
- At a June 2, 2014 canvass, Navarro waived conflict-free representation after individualized inquiries; the court canvassed both defendants and advised on potential conflicts, with Navarro explicitly waiving.
- Navarro was convicted after trial and sentenced to a total term of ten years with five years suspended, followed by five years of probation; he appealed on ineffective assistance and conflict-related grounds.
- The appellate court held that Holloway inquiries were adequate and Navarro’s waiver was knowing and intelligent; claims of ineffective assistance based on conflict were not reviewed on direct appeal without further evidentiary development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holloway required a more extensive inquiry into conflicts | Navarro | State | Inquiry satisfied; conflict speculative |
| Whether counsel suffered an actual conflict during plea negotiations | Navarro's ineffectiveness claim supported by conflict | Waiver precludes review | Record inadequate to determine; not reviewed on direct appeal |
| Whether the joint representation affected trial or sentencing | Navarro | Waiver forecloses review | Waiver valid; claims not reviewable on direct appeal |
| Whether Navarro knowingly and intelligently waived conflict-free representation | Navarro understood risks | Waiver insufficiently explained | Waiver knowingly and intelligently given; proper canvass |
Key Cases Cited
- Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1978) (requires inquiry when conflict could exist; mere possibility is insufficient)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (conflict of interest must adversely affect counsel's performance)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2002) (actual conflict requires effect on performance; speculative conflicts not enough)
- State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 687 (Conn. 1991) (limits Holloway inquiry to specific conflicts; cannot presuppose)
- State v. Gaines, 257 Conn. 695 (Conn. 2001) (trial court may rely on silence of defendant in evaluating conflicts)
- State v. Williams, 203 Conn. 159 (Conn. 1987) (waiver of conflict-free representation must be knowing and intelligent)