State v. Oreilly
State v. Oreilly, 2024 UT App 79 (Orme, J.)
Criminal/Constitutional
Defendant challenges her convictions on appeal arguing that her counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest because he represented both she and her codefendant. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed her convictions, holding:
- Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to show that an actual conflict existed.
- Appellate Practice tip: A defendant’s failure to object at trial to her counsel’s joint representation does not preclude her from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal based on allegations of a conflict of interest arising from joint representation. Her failure merely means that she does not benefit from an automatic reversal of her conviction under Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 488 (1978).
