Opinion
NO. 2016 KW 0760
09-22-2016
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. TRAMION CATHERINE
In Re: Tramion Catherine, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 06-14-0136. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., GUIDRY AND McCLENDON, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The district court's ruling denying relator's motion to withdraw is vacated and this matter is remanded to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. An attorney may run into a conflict when "he or she is required to cross-examine a witness who is testifying against the defendant and who was or is a client of the attorney." State v. Carter, 2010-0614 (La. 1/24/12), 84 So.3d 499, 509, cert denied, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 209, 184 L.Ed.2d 40 (2012). The March 28, 2016 transcript reflects that the public defender explained to the district court that if he was required to continue representing relator in this matter, he would be forced to cross-examine possibly multiple witnesses who would testify against relator and who are current and former clients of the Public Defender's Office. In a pretrial context, regardless of how the conflict of interest issue arises, the district court has two options to avoid a conflict of interest: appoint separate counsel or take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk of a conflict of interest is too remote to warrant separate counsel. In determining whether the conflict is too remote, the court must have the attorney disclose the nature of the conflict. If the court finds the conflict is not too remote, the court is required to describe the conflict to the defendant and to advise the defendant of his right to be represented by a conflict-free attorney. Then, if the defendant chooses to proceed with conflicted counsel, "a statement should be prepared in narrative form, which indicates that the defendant is fully aware of his right [to conflict free counsel] but has chosen to make a knowing and intelligent waiver thereof." Failure to do one or the other in a case in which an actual conflict exists requires reversal. State v. Cisco, 2001-2732 (La. 12/3/03), 861 So.2d 118, 129-132, cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1005, 124 S.Ct. 2023, 158 L.Ed.2d 522 (2004).
JMG
PMc
VGW
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT