Michael McNeil appeals the Madison County Circuit Court's denial of his post-conviction relief petition following his 1989 convictions for three counts of grand larceny and three counts of burglary, which resulted in six life sentences due to habitual criminal status. McNeil filed a pro se petition in 1993 claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, citing a conflict of interest from joint representation with his co-defendant and inadequate performance for failing to present an alibi defense.
The convictions arose from McNeil and his co-defendant being found in a vehicle containing stolen property. Jointly represented by attorney Larry Fitzgerald, McNeil asserts that his co-defendant claimed ownership of the stolen items, which he argues undermined the prosecution's case against him. McNeil also noted that they were offered a plea deal contingent on mutual acceptance, which he rejected due to maintaining his innocence.
During the post-conviction hearing, McNeil presented testimony from his sister, Cerita McNeil, who claimed she could provide an alibi, stating he left her house shortly before the timing of one burglary. She alleged that Fitzgerald failed to call her as a witness despite her attempts to communicate her relevance to the case. The court has remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Margaret Reed's testimony from the appellant’s preliminary hearing indicated that the appellant was at her home in Brownsville during the time of the burglaries. Mr. Fitzgerald, the appellant’s trial counsel, was unaware of this testimony as he did not represent the appellant at that time and had not reviewed the preliminary hearing tapes. He also claimed that the alibi witness, Ms. McNeil, was lying and had not discussed any alibi with him. Fitzgerald stated he saw no conflict in representing both the appellant and co-defendant Anderson, although he could not recall specifics about discussing potential conflicts with either defendant. He later testified that he had indeed discussed the representation with both defendants but acknowledged that if he had known the stolen property was exclusively claimed by the co-defendant, a conflict would have necessitated his withdrawal. Fitzgerald recommended against testifying due to the defendants' prior criminal convictions, but noted the appellant had not expressed a desire to testify. The state had offered a plea deal, but both defendants opted for trial.
The trial court concluded that Fitzgerald was competent, and the appellant received a fair trial, leading to the denial of the petition for post-conviction relief. However, the court failed to provide detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, hindering the review of the appellant's Sixth Amendment claim. The underlying factual disputes regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly concerning conflict of interest, remain unresolved, emphasizing that joint representation does not automatically imply ineffective assistance.
Evidence is required to demonstrate that trial counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that this actual conflict adversely affected the lawyer’s performance, as established in Strickland v. Washington. Appellants must show factual inconsistencies in interests and that the attorney made choices impacting one client negatively while benefiting another. A mere hypothetical conflict is insufficient; an actual significant conflict is necessary. The Supreme Court has noted that conflicts from multiple representations could hinder an attorney's ability to negotiate pleas or explore testimony agreements. Although an adverse effect on performance must be shown, it does not equate to actual prejudice as outlined in Strickland's second prong. A defendant only needs to establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel’s performance; if successful, prejudice is presumed.
The document remands the claim of ineffectiveness due to conflict of interest for the following inquiries: whether the defendant acknowledged ownership of certain goods, the plea offers extended, the existence of a real conflict from joint representation, any adverse impact of that conflict on representation, whether the defendant was properly informed of the potential conflict, and whether he waived the right to conflict-free representation. Additionally, the remand addresses the claim of ineffective assistance for failing to present an alibi defense, seeking findings on counsel's performance deficiency and resultant prejudice. Given the severity of the case, which includes six life sentences, the court requires written findings of fact and conclusions of law, allowing for further testimony from relevant witnesses not previously heard.
