61 N.Y.2d 23 (1983)
When multiple defendants are represented by the same attorney, a defendant seeking a new trial must demonstrate that a conflict of interest, or at least a significant possibility thereof, existed, even if the trial court failed to inquire about the risks of joint representation.
Summary
Alicea and his brother were convicted for shooting an off-duty officer, both represented by the same attorney. The defense argued mistaken identity, claiming another brother was the shooter. The trial court did not inquire about the risks of joint representation. Alicea appealed, arguing his attorney should have pursued a self-defense claim for him while claiming his brother was merely a bystander. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Alicea failed to demonstrate an actual or significant potential conflict of interest that prejudiced his defense, as required to warrant a new trial.
Facts
Defendant Alicea and his brother, Isidoro, were tried together for shooting an off-duty correction officer.
Both were represented by the same attorney.
The defense presented was that the complainant misidentified Alicea and Isidoro, and it was another brother, Arsemio, who fired the shots.
No inquiry was made by the trial court regarding the potential risks of joint representation.
Procedural History
Defendant was convicted at trial.
Defendant appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from the joint representation.
The Appellate Division’s order affirming the conviction was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant is entitled to a new trial when jointly represented with a co-defendant, the trial court fails to inquire about the risks of joint representation, and the defendant alleges the existence of a conflict of interest.
Holding
No, because the defendant must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest, or at least a significant possibility thereof, existed that prejudiced his defense. Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate such a conflict.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the trial court’s failure to inquire about the risks of joint representation, citing People v. Gomberg, which mandates such an inquiry.
However, the Court emphasized that a defendant must additionally demonstrate a conflict of interest or a significant possibility thereof to warrant a new trial, citing People v. Macerola.
The Court found that Alicea’s argument that his attorney should have asserted a self-defense claim for him and a passive bystander defense for Isidoro did not establish a conflict.
The Court reasoned that these defenses were not necessarily inconsistent, and the attorney could have argued self-defense for Alicea without necessarily implicating Isidoro.
The court stated, “Defense counsel could have argued that defendant shot the complainant without also inculpating Isidoro. In fact, had the attorney relied on a theory that defendant fired the shots in self-defense, it might have strengthened an argument on behalf of Isidoro that he was a mere bystander by minimizing his involvement in the incident.”
The Court concluded that Alicea had not met his burden under Macerola to demonstrate a conflict of interest that prejudiced his defense.