People v. Konstantinides, 14 N.Y.3d 1 (2009)

To succeed on a conflict-based ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate that a potential conflict of interest actually affected the conduct of their defense, and appellate review is limited to whether the Appellate Division’s determination lacks record support.

Summary

George Konstantinides appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest involving one of his attorneys and the denial of a hearing regarding the constitutionality of a prior felony conviction used to enhance his sentence. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that while a potential conflict existed, Konstantinides failed to show that the conflict actually impacted his defense. The Court also found that Konstantinides’s general claims about the unconstitutionality of his prior conviction were insufficient to warrant a hearing.

Facts

Konstantinides violated parole in 2003, leading to an arrest warrant. In December 2003, police found him in a limousine with G.T. As police approached, Konstantinides allegedly threatened G.T. with a gun, forcing him to drive recklessly while being pursued by the police. During the chase, the gun discharged. Konstantinides fled on foot, firing shots at the officers. He was apprehended the next day with the same gun. During jury selection at trial, a second attorney joined the defense team to assist the primary attorney.

Procedural History

Konstantinides was charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, and weapons possession. At trial, the prosecutor raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving the second attorney based on allegations of witness tampering. The jury convicted Konstantinides on weapons charges but couldn’t reach a verdict on attempted murder, which were later dismissed. Prior to sentencing, the People filed a persistent violent felony offender statement. Konstantinides challenged the constitutionality of prior convictions, which the Supreme Court denied without a hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Konstantinides was denied effective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest involving one of his attorneys.
2. Whether Konstantinides was entitled to a hearing to challenge the constitutionality of a prior felony conviction used to enhance his sentence.

Holding

1. No, because Konstantinides failed to demonstrate that the potential conflict of interest actually affected the conduct of his defense.
2. No, because Konstantinides’s conclusory allegations of unconstitutionality were insufficient to warrant a hearing.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the conflict of interest claim, the Court of Appeals applied the two-pronged test established in People v. Ortiz, requiring a defendant to show a potential conflict of interest and that the conflict actually operated on the defense. While a potential conflict existed due to allegations against the second attorney, Konstantinides failed to show that it influenced his defense strategy or conduct. The Court noted that Konstantinides was simultaneously represented by conflict-free counsel who actively participated in the trial. The defense pursued the line of questioning that the prosecutor warned might create a conflict, and the prosecutor never called the witness whose testimony might have exposed the conflict. The Court also stated that, while an on-the-record inquiry would have been better practice, its absence did not relieve Konstantinides of his burden to show the conflict affected the defense. As for the persistent violent felony offender status, the Court stated that a defendant must present factual support for a claim that a prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained to be entitled to a hearing. Konstantinides’s general claims of coerced pleas and ineffective assistance of counsel, without specific factual allegations, were insufficient to warrant a hearing. The Court emphasized that the defendant admitted guilt to the previous crimes during the trial.