People v. Silva CA4/3

DISCUSSION

In his motion for a new trial defendant itemized the grounds as follows: “i) trial counsel’s performance fell below the standard of care in that he failed to present a coherent defense, including preparing the [d]efendant to testify, that he failed to impeach material witnesses, and that he failed to present DNA evidence that could have been argued for acquittal on the most serious offense, forcible rape . . .; and (ii) that trial counsel had a conflict of interest during the trial on the matter with the victim of Count 2, T[.]P., because his office represented her on a current prostitution case, . . . for which she was still on probation at the time of trial. As to both claims, the [d]efendant’s right to effective representation was prejudicially affected, under the Federal and State Constitutions.”

1. The asserted conflict of interest. Defendant never asserted Stephen Daniels, the deputy public defender who represented him also represented T.P. The contention was based on the assertion the Office of the Public Defender represented her. Although defendant contends this representation was contemporaneous, the record is unclear. The prosecution asserted T.P. first…