## Facts

- Contra Costa County operated a Public Defender’s Office (PD) for indigent criminal defense and created an Alternate Defender Office (ADO) to handle matters where the PD had conflicts.
- Although formally within the PD, the ADO functioned as an autonomous unit with separate supervision, offices, staff, investigators, equipment, and communications.
- The ADO had its own supervising attorney with sole responsibility for directing litigation strategy and supervising ADO attorneys; the Public Defender had no access to ADO client files or confidences and no day-to-day control of ADO cases.
- Christian and Jackson committed an armed robbery at a Taco Bell in Richmond, California, taking money from registers and a safe; police arrested both shortly after the robbery, and Jackson discarded a handgun during the encounter.
- At a joint jury trial, Christian was represented by the PD and Jackson by the ADO.
- Before and after trial, Jackson sought substitution of counsel, arguing a conflict because the PD and ADO were not truly separate for conflict purposes; the trial court denied the motions.
- Both defendants were convicted; on appeal, Christian’s counsel filed a no-issues brief under *People v. Wende*, while Jackson appealed on conflict-of-interest and ineffective assistance grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the PD and ADO should be treated as a single law firm for imputed-conflict purposes, making their simultaneous representation of co-defendants a violation of Jackson’s right to conflict-free counsel.
2. Whether Jackson showed an actual conflict or ineffective assistance based on claimed divergence of interests or alleged deficiencies by ADO counsel.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions of both Christian and Jackson.
- The court held that the PD and ADO, as structured and operated, were sufficiently independent to be treated as separate firms for conflict-of-interest purposes.
- The court rejected a per se conflict based solely on the Public Defender’s overall administrative connection to both units.
- The court found Jackson failed to demonstrate an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance or any ineffective assistance tied to divided loyalties.
- As to Christian, the court conducted an independent review under *Wende* and found no arguable issues.

## Legal Principles

- Imputed conflicts in institutional indigent-defense settings depend on functional realities; structurally separate defender units may be treated as separate entities when separation is real and enforced.
- Adequate safeguards supporting separate-entity treatment include independent supervision, physical and operational separation, and effective protection of client confidences (including no cross-access to files or confidential information).
- An overall administrative relationship, without control over case handling or access to confidences, does not alone establish a conflict requiring automatic disqualification.
- A defendant claiming denial of conflict-free counsel must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance, not merely a theoretical or speculative possibility.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions from a joint trial where one defendant was represented by the public defender and the co-defendant by an alternate defender unit, concluding that the offices’ practical independence and confidentiality safeguards prevented imputed conflicts and that no actual conflict or resulting ineffective assistance was shown.


People v. Christian, 41 Cal. App. 4th 986, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)