68 N.Y.2d 130 (1986)
Joint representation of co-defendants is not per se forbidden, but vacatur of a plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest will only result where the defendant demonstrates that a significant possibility of a conflict of interest existed, bearing a substantial relationship to the conduct of the defense.
Summary
Salcedo and his wife were jointly represented by one attorney after being indicted on drug and weapons charges. Salcedo pleaded guilty to multiple drug offenses in exchange for concurrent sentences and the dismissal of charges against his wife. On appeal, Salcedo sought to vacate his plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest arising from the joint representation. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that Salcedo failed to demonstrate that a significant possibility of a conflict of interest existed that substantially affected his defense.
Facts
Defendant Salcedo was arrested for selling cocaine to an undercover officer on two separate occasions.
Police searched Salcedo’s apartment, finding methamphetamine, cocaine, an unregistered pistol, and a rifle in a closet in his bedroom.
Salcedo and his wife were indicted; Salcedo for criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance, and both for weapon possession.
The charges against Salcedo’s wife were based solely on constructive possession of the contraband found in their shared residence.
Originally represented by separate counsel, Salcedo and his wife later retained one attorney to represent them both.
Salcedo pleaded guilty to several drug charges in exchange for concurrent sentences and dismissal of the charges against his wife.
Procedural History
Defendant pleaded guilty in the trial court.
Defendant appealed, seeking vacatur of his plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the joint representation of co-defendants by a single attorney created a conflict of interest that denied Salcedo effective assistance of counsel, warranting vacatur of his guilty plea.
Holding
No, because Salcedo failed to demonstrate that a significant possibility of a conflict of interest existed that bore a substantial relationship to the conduct of his defense.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged that joint representation can create a potential conflict of interest.
However, it emphasized that joint representation is not per se forbidden, and vacatur is only warranted if a