State v. Tirado
392 P.3d 926
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- A confidential informant arranged to buy ~7 grams meth from William Tirado for $440; a police sting was set up using an audio-equipped informant.
- Tirado and his cousin (Cousin) were together when contacted; no face-to-face sale occurred and Tirado had no drugs on him at arrest. Cousin was arrested and found with 2.1 grams of meth.
- Police searched Tirado’s home with consent from others and found drug paraphernalia Tirado later admitted owning; Tirado was charged with possession of paraphernalia and later with arranging distribution (second-degree felony).
- The same appointed attorney (Attorney) represented both Tirado and Cousin; Cousin pled guilty to a lesser related charge and was sentenced before Tirado’s trial.
- At Tirado’s trial Attorney did not call Cousin or object to admission of Cousin’s out-of-court statements; Tirado was convicted on both counts and appealed claiming ineffective assistance due to an actual conflict of interest.
- The Court granted Tirado’s Utah R. App. P. 23B motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Attorney had an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected representation.
Issues
| Issue | Tirado's Argument | Attorney/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether concurrent representation of Cousin created an actual conflict of interest that deprived Tirado of effective assistance | Attorney’s dual representation created a significant risk duties to Cousin materially limited Attorney’s advocacy for Tirado (e.g., not calling Cousin, not challenging Cousin’s statements) | Decision not to call Cousin or challenge evidence was a reasonable trial strategy; allegations are speculative and don’t show Attorney advanced Cousin’s interests over Tirado’s | Remand granted under Rule 23B for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether an actual, unwaived conflict existed and whether it rendered representation constitutionally ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (explains actual conflict-of-interest test and that prejudice is presumed when an actual conflict adversely affects representation)
- Lafferty v. State, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007) (discusses conflict-of-interest principles and that an actual detrimental conflict warrants presumption of prejudice)