ÿWPC¼ D# ÈUNÓ %! 0('w@O4£² m´ 0@ËÆ  0eÑ 0@6 0Jv 0TÀ 0^ 0hr 0rÚ 0†L 0DÒ 0| 0†’ D3 0K 1uÛ 0dP AQ´ Æ 0DË 0@ 0DO D/“ B BßU>üU *:B)d 0TDCá AM$6q`§ffmfÓf9fŸfkv~kvÓé˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎxÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ "E#U$E%U&U'U(E)*Ó€6Œƒ*#/n text3|x6ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2c0Quick "ð"ðà0 àA, B,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#)Þ2Quick A.Úƒ ÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€ Û2 ÿÿ0Quick ððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(6(2Ä$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô....'ÿÿdxd2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô " ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ()*+-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó//'÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d(—8$——ÔªÔò òòòóóó óÔªÔ55557Border 1dd(*7Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òSeptember€26,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€4ÔÔ€4ôÔ€Newport›€testified€that€he€saw€no€conflict€in€representing€both€defendants.€€It€is€unclearÏfrom€Newportððs€testimony€whether€he€conceded€that€he€was€aware€of€Simsðð€statement€inculpatingÏappellant.€€Regardless,€the€trial€court€found€that€counsel€had€a€ð ðconflict€that€would€make€itÏinappropriate€for€the€same€lawyer€to€represent€both€persons€charged€in€this€case.ððÌ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€Ô€4ÔÔ€4ôÔAll›€original€charges,€including€the€charges€of€attempted€first€degree€murder,€areÏœreinstated.›€€Appellant€stated€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€he€was€aware€this€would€occur€ifÏœhe›€were€successful€in€this€post„conviction€matter.Ô€3ÔÔ€3XÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€3ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓ  ÓÑ7€0XXdìdÈ7ÑÔ€4ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓò òÑ  ќـ(ÙßR€897A1-j|i™` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌà@ àSEPTEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSAMMIE€œ¢NETTERS,£›à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€¢02C01£„9610„CR„00322ó óÌà àAppellant,à àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌ¢VS£.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àHON.€BERNIE€¢WEINMAN£,ÏJUDGEÌœSTATE›€OF€TENNESSEE,à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà àœ)ó ó›à0 àà0 àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœò ò)ó óà à(Post„conviction)›à àÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌÌÌÌò òÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àòòà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌHOWARD€B.€MANISà àà àà àà0 àJOHN€KNOX€¢WALKUP£€ó óÌ200€Jefferson,€Suite€1313à àà àà àà0 àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€38103€€€€€Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àò òà àà àà àà àELIZABETH€T.€RYANó óÌà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó ó450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€œL.€GIBBONS›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òREGINALD€HENDERSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Ave.,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌÌÌò òOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóó óÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌJOE€G.€RILEY,ÌÓÓœJUDGEÇš›òòÔ€3Ôà@ àÔ€4ÔOPINIONó óóóÌÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€from€the€dismissal€of€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€sole€issue€is€whether€appellant€was€deprived€of€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€at€the€time€of€entry€of€his€prior€guilty€plea.€€Based€upon€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court,€we€conclude€that€appellantððs€counsel€had€aÏconflict€of€interest.€€€Since€this€conflict€is€presumptively€prejudicial€to€appellant,Ïwe€must€set€aside€the€guilty€plea€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà@ àò òòòPROCEDURAL€HISTORYóóó óÌÌà àAppellant€originally€pled€guilty€to€attempted€second€degree€murder€andÏaggravated€burglary.€€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€eight€(8)€years€on€the€firstÏcount€with€six€(6)€years€concurrent€on€the€second€count,€both€to€be€served€inÏ¢TDOC£.€€His€co„defendant€on€the€burglary€charge,€Vincent€Sims,€pled€guilty€toÏaggravated€burglary€and€was€sentenced€to€three€(3)€years€in€the€localÏworkhouse.€€All€counts€arose€out€of€the€same€incident.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTSÌÌà àó óóóAppellant,€indicted€for€two€counts€of€attempted€first€degree€murder€and€oneÏcount€of€aggravated€burglary,€was€appointed€œAssistant›€œPublic›€œDefender,›€MelvinÏTurner,€œas›€his€counsel.€€His€co„defendant€on€the€burglary€count,€Vincent€Sims,Íwas€appointed€œAssistant›€œPublic›€œDefender,›€Bethel€Alan€Newport.€€€It€is€undisputedÏthat€appellant€had€always€expressed€a€desire€to€go€to€trial.€€The€trial€date€was€toÏbe€Monday,€January€25,€1993.€€However,€on€Friday,€January€22,€1993,€the€co„defendantððs€assigned€counsel,€Newport,€discussed€a€possible€plea€agreementÏwith€appellant.€€Appellantððs€assigned€attorney,€Turner,€was€not€present.€€NewportÏtold€appellant€that€Sims€could€not€plead€guilty€unless€appellant€did,€and€SimsÏhad€to€go€to€trial€if€appellant€did.€€Sims€preferred€to€plead€guilty€rather€than€go€toÏtrial.Ìà àSims€had€stated€that€appellant€shot€at€the€alleged€victims.€Appellant€hadÏmaintained€he€shot€into€the€air€to€scare€them.€€€ÌÒ ° ÒÒ 8 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 Òà àAttorney€Newport€questioned€appellant€regarding€the€facts€of€the€caseÏand,€subsequently,€advised€him€it€would€be€in€his€best€interest€to€take€an€offer€ofÏeight€(8)€years€for€one€count€of€attempted€second€degree€murder€and€six€(6)Ïyears€for€aggravated€burglary,€to€run€concurrently.œ× ƒ: ××  ×›€€Newport€testified€that€TurnerÏhad€given€him€permission€to€speak€to€appellant.€€€Turner€testified€to€the€contrary.€ÏThis€factual€dispute€was€not€resolved€by€the€trial€court.€€Ìà àNewport€told€appellant€his€decision€to€go€to€trial€was€going€to€ð ðmess€upððÏthe€co„defendant,€but€it€was€appellantððs€choice.€€He€told€him€that€he€needed€toÏmake€a€decision€that€day€since€the€court€did€not€like€to€accept€pleas€on€the€dateÏof€trial.€€Appellant€decided€to€plead€guilty€pursuant€to€the€plea€offer€although€heÍtold€Newport€that€he€did€not€like€it.€€Appellant€signed€the€guilty€plea,€and€NewportÏsigned€ð ðMelvin€Turner€by€B.€A.€Newport.ðð€€Ìà àBoth€defendants€entered€guilty€pleas.€€The€stateððs€recital€of€factsÏencompassed€both€defendants€and€recommended€that€the€plea€agreements€beÏaccepted€as€to€both.€€Newport€asked€the€court€to€accept€the€negotiated€sentencesÏfor€both€defendants.€€Following€the€entry€of€the€guilty€plea€by€appellant,€the€co„defendant€entered€his€guilty€plea€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement.€€The€œco„defendant›€received€a€sentence€of€three€(3)€years€for€aggravated€burglary.€€Ì€€Ìà@ àòòò òGUILTY€PLEA€PROCEEDINGó óóóÌÌà àDuring€the€taking€of€appellantððs€plea,€on€the€constructive€eve€of€trial,€€theÏjudge€learned€that€appellantððs€assigned€attorney,€Melvin€Turner,€was€not€in€theÏcourtroom.€€Appellant€further€stated€that€he€had€not€discussed€the€facts€withÏTurner€and€had€not€Ñ e ÑÑ7€XXdðXXdð7Ñseen€him€in€the€previous€two€weeks.€€The€judge€asked€ð ð.€.€.Ïhow€.€.€.€can€you€plead€guilty€to€something€if€you€havenððt€really€intelligently€talkedÏto€your€attorney€about€[your€case]?ðð€ÌÒ ` ÒÒ 8 ÒÒ ` ÒÒ è ÒÓÓà0 àà0 àà àA.à à[APPELLANT]€€He€told€me€I€had€no€chance€ofÏwinning.€€So€I€feel€like€I€ð"ð€if€I€couldnððt€win,€IððmÏon€my€way.€€Iððm€ready€to€give€myself€eight€ratherÏthan€let€him€give€me€eight.ÌÌà àÚƒ ÚQÚ  Ú.à0 àWell,€Iððm€not€sure€based€on€your€statements€IÏcan€accept€the€plea€from€this€man€if€he€hasnððtÏtalked€to€Mr.€Turner€about€the€facts.Û€ ÛÌÌà0 àà0 à¢MR£.€NEWPORT:€Mr.€¢Netters£,€have€we€talkedÏabout€the€facts?ÌÌà àÚƒ ÚAÚ  Ú.à0 àYeah,€me€and€you€talked€about€œit.›Û€ Ư̜̂à à.€.€.€.€ÌœÌ›à0 àà0 àTHE€COURT:€Well,€Iððm€going€to€cross€out€MelvinÏTurnerððs€name€here.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ 8 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 Òà àThe€court€wrote€in€ð ðBethel€Newportðð€beside€€ð ðMelvin€œTurner,ðð›€which€heÏlined€ÌÌthrough,€thus€appointing€co„defendantððs€counsel€to€appellant€also.ÌÌ€à àAfter€the€court€discussed€the€plea€agreement€with€appellant,€the€courtÏasked:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ 8 ÒÒ ` ÒÒ è ÒÌà àÚƒ ÚQÚ  Ú.à0 àDo€you€clearly€understand€that€you€areÏadmitting€that€you€are€guilty?€€That€you€admitÏthat€you€did€this€when€you€plead€guilty?Û€ ÛÌà àÌà àÚƒ ÚAÚ  Ú.à0 àWell,€I€did€something,€but€I€donððt€think€I€did€whatÏthe€State€says€I€did.Û€ ÛÌà àÌà àÚƒ ÚQÚ  Ú.à0 àOkay.€€You€take€issue€with€what€they€say.€€Well,ÏIððll€talk€to€you€about€that.€€But€in€the€eyes€of€theÏlaw,€when€you€plead€guilty€to€criminal€attempt,Ïto€wit[:]€murder€second€degree,€thatððs€what€theÏlaw€says€you€did.€.€.€.€.€You€claim€youððre€notÏguilty€under€these€facts€and€circumstances?Û€ ÛÌà àÌà àÚƒ ÚAÚ  Ú.à0 àNo,€sir.Û€ ÛÌà àÌà àÚƒ ÚQÚ  Ú.à0 àOkay.€€We€have€a€principal€[sic]€of€law€calledÏ¢Alford£€v.€North€Carolina.€€Thatððs€a€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€opinion€that€said€you€can€pleadÏguilty€if€you€feel€itððs€in€your€own€best€œinterest.›Û€ ÛÌÌà à.€.€.€.ÌÌà àÚƒ ÚQÚ  Ú.à0 àOrdinarily€I€canððt€take€a€guilty€plea€from€anÏindividual€who€says€heððs€not€guilty.€€€The€onlyÏway€I€can€do€that€is€if€you€feel€thatððs€€ð"ð€if€youÏwant€to€go€ahead€and€plead€guilty€knowing€fullyÏtheÑ€;ÑÇconsequences€and€if€you€feel€in€your€own€best€interest€youÏshould€do€this.Û€ ÛÌà àÌà àÚƒ ÚAÚ  Ú.à0 àYes,€it€is€[in]€my€best€interest.Û€ ÛÌÌÒ  ÒÒ è ÒÒ  ÒÒ 8 ÒÓÓà àAttorney€Turner€œentered›€the€courtroom€at€some€point€after€the€proceedingsÏhad€begun.€€After€the€judge€had€interrogated€the€appellant€concerning€his€plea,ÏTurner€then€sought€permission€to€and€did€question€appellant€on€the€record€aboutÏhis€remarks€that€Turner€had€not€properly€represented€him.€€In€spite€of€hisÏdissatisfaction€with€Turner,€appellant€subsequently€œstated›€he€still€wanted€to€pleadÏguilty.€€The€trial€court€accepted€the€plea€agreement.ÌÌ€€€à@ àò òòòPOST„CONVICTION€COURT€FINDINGSóóó óÌÌà àThe€post„conviction€court€made€the€following€findings:ÌÓÓà àœ(1)›à0 àappellant€had€denied€shooting€a€gun€at€the€alleged€victims;̛̜à àœ(2)›à0 àco„defendant€Simsðð€statement€was€to€the€contrary,€allegingÏappellant€fired€at€the€alleged€victims;̛̜à àœ(3)›à0 àthe€conflicting€statements€of€the€co„defendants€made€itÏð ðinappropriateðð€for€the€same€lawyer€to€represent€both€persons;̛̜à àœ(4)›à0 àthe€appellant,€nevertheless,€freely€and€voluntarily€entered€the€guiltyÏplea;̛̜à àœ(5)›à0 àappellant€believed€the€plea€to€be€in€his€best€interest;€and€ÌœÌ›à àœ(6)›€à0 àthe€plea€was€not€the€result€of€counselððs€œerrors.Ì›ÌÓÓà àThe€court,€therefore,€concluded€that€appellant€suffered€no€prejudice€andÏdismissed€the€petition.ÌÌà@ àòòò òINEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óóóÌà àÌà àThis€Court€reviews€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€under€theÏstandards€of€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€¢S.W.2d£€930€(Tenn.€1975),€and€òò¢Strickland£€v.ÏWashingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€104€¢S.Ct£.€2052,€80€¢L.Ed£.2d€674€(1984).€€TheÏpetitioner€has€the€burden€to€prove€that€(1)€the€attorneyððs€performance€wasÏdeficient,€and€(2)€theÑ€<ÑÑ€=ÑÇdeficient€performance€resulted€in€prejudice€to€the€defendant€so€as€to€deprive€himÏof€a€fair€trial.€€òò¢Strickland£€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€104€¢S.Ct£.€œat›€2064;€òòGoadÏv.€Stateóó,€938€¢S.W.2d£€363,€369€(Tenn.€1996);€òò¢Overton£€v.€Stateóó,€874€¢S.W.2d£€6,€11Ï(Tenn.€1994);€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€¢S.W.2d£€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€òòHill€v.€¢Lockhart£óó,€474€U.S.€52,106€¢S.Ct£.€366,€88€¢L.Ed£.2d€203€(1985),€theÏSupreme€Court€applied€the€two„part€òò¢Strickland£óó€standard€to€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€claims€arising€out€of€a€guilty€plea.€€The€Court€in€òòHillóó€modified€theÏprejudice€requirement€by€requiring€a€defendant€to€show€that€there€is€aÏreasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€errors,€he€would€not€have€pleadedÏguilty€and€would€have€insisted€on€going€to€trial.€€òòIdóó.€at€59.ÌÌà@ àòòò òPOST„CONVICTION€STANDARDS€FOR€REVIEWó óóóÌÌà àThe€trial€judgeððs€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€are€conclusiveÏon€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€œ899„900;›€òò¢Adkins£€v.€Stateóó,€911€¢S.W.2d£€334,€354€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.Ïœ1994).›€€The€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict,Ïand€this€Court€is€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€unless€the€evidence€in€theÏrecord€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòDixon€v.€Stateóó,€934€¢S.W.2d£€69,€œ71„72›€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.€1996).€€This€Court€may€not€¢reweigh£€or€reevaluate€theÏevidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòMasseyÏv.€Stateóó,€929€¢S.W.2d£€399,€403€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.€1996);€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794Ï¢S.W.2d£€752,€755€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.€1990).€€Questions€concerning€the€credibilityÍof€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€to€their€testimony€are€resolvedÏby€the€trial€court,€not€this€œCourt.›€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€¢S.W.2d£€at€755.€€The€burden€ofÏestablishing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise€is€on€the€petitioner.€€œòòIdóó.òòò ò›Ì̛̜œÑ€>ÑÑ€?ÑÇ›à@ àPUBLIC€DEFENDERððS€OFFICEó óóóÌÌà àIn€determining€whether€counsel€had€a€conflict€in€representing€bothÏdefendants,€we€first€address€whether€the€appointment€of€two€separate€attorneys,Ïboth€of€whom€are€assistant€public€defenders,€solved€any€potential€conflict.€€WeÏthink€not.€€Since€both€attorneys€were€employed€by€the€local€public€defenderððsÏoffice,€the€issue€is€whether€the€public€defenderððs€office€had€a€conflict.€€€The€factÏthat€two€separate€attorneys€were€actually€named€does€not€resolve€a€conflict.€ÏWhether€Newport€did€orÌdid€not€have€Turnerððs€permission€to€speak€with€appellant€on€the€date€of€the€pleaÏis€not€determinative€of€this€issue.ÌÌò òòòà@ àCONFLICT€OF€INTERESTóóó óÌÌà àThe€mere€fact€that€counsel€might€have€a€potential€conflict€of€interest€inÏrepresenting€multiple€clients€does€not€authorize€a€presumption€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€òò¢Cuyler£€v.€Sullivanóó,€446€U.S.€335,€100€¢S.Ct£.€1708,€64Ï¢L.Ed£.2d€333€(1980);€€òòState€v.€¢Parrott£óó,€919€¢S.W.2d£€60€(Tenn.€¢Crim£.€App.1995).€ÏHowever,€if€an€attorney€actively€represents€conflicting€interests,€prejudice€isÏœpresumed.€›€œòò¢Strickland£›€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€692;€òò¢Cuyler£€v.€Sullivanóó,€446ÏU.S.€at€œ349„50;›€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€¢S.W.2d£€œ239,€245›€(Tenn.€1989),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó€497€U.S.€1031,€110€¢S.Ct£.€3288,€111€¢L.Ed£.2d€796€(1990).€€The€properÏfocus€is€solely€upon€whether€counselððs€conflict€affected€counselððs€actions€and€theÍdefendantððs€decision;€therefore,€it€is€inappropriate€to€consider€whether€anotherÏattorney,€untainted€by€a€conflict€of€interest,€would€also€have€recommended€aÏguilty€plea.€€òòThomas€v.€¢Foltz£óó,€818€F.2d€476€œ(6òòthóó›€Cir.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€484€U.S.€870Ï(1987).Ìà àIn€this€case€the€trial€court€expressly€found€that€counsel€from€the€publicÑ€@ÑÇdefenderððs€office€had€a€conflict€of€interest€making€it€inappropriate€for€one€attorneyÏtodefendant€pleading€guilty;€(2)€the€co„defendant€desired€to€plead€guilty,Ïwhereas€appellant€had€consistently€desired€to€go€to€trial;€(3)€assigned€counsel€forÏthe€co„defendant€advised€appellant€that€œhis›€failure€to€plead€guilty€could€ð ðmessÏupðð€the€co„defendantððs€desire€to€plead€guilty;€(4)€co„defendant€had€stated€theÏappellant€fired€at€the€alleged€victims,€whereas€appellant€insisted€he€had€firedÏshots€into€the€air;€(5)€counsel€who€represented€co„defendant€was€actuallyÏsubstituted€as€counsel€for€appellant€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding;€and€(6)Ïappellant€at€the€guilty€plea€proceeding€denied€guilt€on€the€attempted€murderÏcharge€and,€at€the€œsuggestion›€of€the€trial€court,€entered€a€ð ðbest€interestðð€pleaÏpursuant€to€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€¢Alford£óó,€400€U.S.€25,€œ91›€¢S.Ct£.€160,€27€¢L.Ed£.€2d€162Ï(1970).Ìà àThe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€defense€counsel€had€an€actual€conflict€ofÏinterest€limits€our€legal€inquiry.€€In€view€of€this€finding,€which€is€clearly€supportedÏby€the€record,€there€is€a€presumption€of€prejudice€relating€to€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€òò¢Strickland£€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€692;€òò¢Cuyler£€v.ÏSullivanóó,€446€U.S.€at€350;€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€¢S.W.2d£€at€245.Ìà àIt€is€undisputed€that€appellant€entered€his€guilty€plea€after€having€beenÏadvised€by€counsel€with€a€conflict€of€interest.€€Furthermore,€under€the€testimonyÏpresented€in€this€record,€there€is€certainly€a€reasonable€probability€that€appellantÏwould€not€have€pled€guilty€if€he€had€conflict„free€counsel.€€òòHill€v.€¢Lockhart£óó,€474ÏU.S.€at€57„58.ÌÌà@ àò òòòCONCLUSIONóóó óÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€must€be€reversed;€counselÏother€than€the€public€defenderððs€office€must€be€appointed;€and€the€cause€shouldÏbe€remanded€for€further€proceedings.œ× ƒA ××  ×›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòòò ò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÌœÌCONCUR:›œÌ›œÌ›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€œJUDGEÌ›œÌ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€œJUDGE›ÓÓó ó€represent€both€appellant€and€his€co„defendant.€ÏThis€finding€is€certainly€supported€by€the€following€facts:€(1)€the€plea€offer€wasÏcontingent€upon€both€appellant€and€his€co„