The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to be represented by counsel whose loyalties are undivided.[238]  “[T]he Sixth Amendment also guarantees each criminal defendant the right to assistance of counsel “unhindered by a conflict of interests.”[239]  This guarantee is so important that, unlike with other Sixth Amendment claims, when a defendant alleges an unconstitutional actual conflict of interest, “prejudice must be presumed,” and harmless error analysis does not apply.[240]

[238] United States v. Partin, 601 F.2d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir. 1979).

[239] United States v. Wheat, 813 F.2d 1399, 1402 (9th Cir. 1987), citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 355 (1980) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 483, n. 5, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, n.5 (1978)).

[240] Lockhart v. Terhune, 243 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2001)(citing Delgado v. Lewis, 223 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2000)(citing Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 (1980), and Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 268 (1984)); United States v. Allen, 831 F.2d 1487, 1494-95 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Lower Courts of Ninth Circuit

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL "CONFLICT OF INTEREST
People v. Almanza, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2015 WL 368283 (6th Dist. Jan. 29, 2015) (In the context of a claim of conflict of interest ... the deficient-performance prong of the Strickland test is satisfied by a showing that defense counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest, that is, a conflict that affected counsel's performance"as opposed to a mere theoretical division of loyalties. (Rundle, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 169, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 454, 180 P.3d 224, italics deleted.) In other words, defendant must show that the conflict (a) existed and (b) had some palpable, real effect on the trial, i.e., the actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer's performance. ( Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052.)). Cal Crim Def 20.39

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL "CONFLICT OF INTEREST
People v. Almanza, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, ___, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2015 WL 368283 (6th Dist. Jan. 29, 2015) (Because defense counsel was not representing two or more defendants concurrently, under Doolins bright-line rule we apply the traditional Strickland prejudice standard to his claim. . . . Accordingly, it is possible that the outcome might have differed absent the conflict of interest. But Strickland speaks not of possibilities, but reasonable probabilities. Jane's inculpatory statements are buttressed by defendant's own inculpating statement and behavior. There is no reasonable probability of a different outcome.). Cal Crim Def 20.39

Other

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " COUNSEL " INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE " CONFLICT OF INTEREST CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, SENTENCING
People v. Doolin, No. S054489 Attorney conflict claims under the California constitution are to be analyzed under the same standard as that articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mickens v. Taylor, (2002) 535 U.S. 162. In an automatic appeal in a death penalty case, the conviction and sentence are affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) alleged conflict of interest based on counsel's compensation agreement; 2) a denial of a request for second counsel; 3) improper admission of evidence of defendant's character; 4) the testimony of defendant's mother; 5) prosecutorial misconduct; 6) admissibility of DNA evidence; 7) a denial of a request for continuance; 8) a Faretta motion; 9) challenges to California's death penalty law; and 10) international law.