Yarbrough v. State
| Docket Number: | 2012-CA-00292-COA Linked Case(s): 2012-TS-00292-COA ; 2012-TS-00292-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-20-2014 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed, rendered and remanded. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Post-conviction relief - Attorney conflict of interest - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Waiver Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton and Fair, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Maxwell, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion, Joined by Griffis, P.J., Barnes and Fair, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: James, J., With Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: PCR Nature of the Case: PCR |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-27-2012 Appealed from: LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: JAMES T. KITCHENS JR. Disposition: Motion for post-conviction relief denied Case Number: 2009-0111-CV1 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Stephen Yarbrough a/k/a Steven Yarbrough a/k/a Stephen T. Yarbrough a/k/a Steven Tracy Yarbrough a/k/a Stephen Tracy Yarbrough |
JANE E. TUCKER, JAMES W. CRAIG |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: JEFFREY A. KLINGFUSS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Post-conviction relief - Attorney conflict of interest - Ineffective assistance of counsel - Waiver |
| Summary of the Facts: | Stephen Yarbrough was convicted of aggravated assault of a law-enforcement officer. He was sentenced, as a habitual offender, to thirty years. He appealed, and his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Yarbrough sought relief from the Mississippi Supreme Court for leave to file a motion for post-conviction relief, with the primary issues being attorney conflict and ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court granted Yarbrough’s motion for leave to file a PCR motion. The circuit court denied Yarbrough’s PCR motion and found that while there was an apparent, actual conflict, Yarbrough knowingly and intelligently waived any conflict. Yarbrough appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Yarbrough argues that the circuit court erred in denying his PCR motion after finding that he waived any conflict of his attorney representing Deputy Sims in an unrelated matter at the same time the attorney was defending Yarbrough for assaulting Deputy Sims. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel encompasses a right to effective assistance from an attorney who is conflict-free. When the accused is represented by an attorney with an actual conflict of interest, the accused has received ineffective assistance of counsel as a matter of law, and ‘reversal is automatic irrespective of a showing of prejudice unless the accused knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to conflict free representation. Here, the attorney represented Deputy Sims in divorce proceedings that were finalized in August 2006. Several months later, in October 2006, the altercation between Deputy Sims and Yarbrough occurred. Prior to October 2006, Yarbrough retained the attorney to represent him on unrelated drug charges, and after the altercation, the attorney agreed to also represent Yarbrough on the charge of aggravated assault of a law-enforcement officer. In March 2007, just two months before Yarbrough’s trial for the aggravated assault of Deputy Sims, the attorney filed a petition for contempt against Deputy Sims’s ex-wife on Deputy Sims’s behalf. Yarbrough’s trial began on May 15, 2007, and the final order in Deputy Sims’s contempt action was not entered until June 2007. Thus, the attorney’s representation of Yarbrough overlapped with his representation of Deputy Sims. This overlap results in an actual conflict of interest and prejudice is presumed. While it is undisputed that the attorney informed Yarbrough that he knew Deputy Sims and their relationship could be advantageous, there was no evidence that Yarbrough was informed of any possible risks that could result from the attorney’s representation of both Deputy Sims and Yarbrough. Additionally, Yarbrough testified that he was not aware that the attorney was presently representing Deputy Sims, and the attorney testified that he did not know if he told Yarbrough of his present representation of Deputy Sims. In addition, the attorney did not inform the circuit court of his representation of both Yarbrough and Deputy Sims. Without the knowledge of the present attorney client relationship between the attorney and Deputy Sims, as well as the risks associated with that relationship, Yarbrough could not have knowingly and intelligently waived the conflict of interest. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
