Burkhart v. U.S.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his conviction on fraud and money laundering charges to which he had pleaded guilty, on ground that his trial counsel, who had advised defendant to plead guilty to said charges, labored under conflict of interest because counsel also represented one of defendant’s victims in his alleged fraudulent scheme. Both parties agreed that counsel labored under conflict of interest. However, defendant could not receive any relief, since instant conflict did not result in adverse effect on defendant’s representation, where: (1) record showed that trial counsel took steps to vigorously defend defendant on instant fraud and money laundering charges; and (2) counsel’s advice to defendant to plead guilty to said charges was reasonable in view of the fact that there was damaging evidence against defendant, and fact that three of defendant’s co-defendants (including his brother) had pleaded guilty to said charges and had agreed to testify against him. Also, Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that counsel compromised its advice to defendant in order to secure additional restitution for counsel’s other client and to avoid exposing other client’s potential misconduct.