BROADCASTS.com

Insurance Fraud Charges Against Defense Counsel Does Not Result in \nReversal for Ineffective Counsel\n\nWhile Jesse Steven Castro's case was pending, his attorney was charged \nwith two insurance fraud felony offenses. Castro's case proceeded to \ntrial, and a jury convicted him of continuous sexual abuse of a child. \nCastro filed a motion for new trial claiming that he received \nineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to \ndisclose and was distracted by her pending charges and in so doing, \nprioritized her financial interest in representing him above a fiduciary\n duty to disclose her pending charges.\n\nIn Jesse Steven Castro v. The State Of Texas, No. 14-19-00679-CR, Court \nof Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District (August 31, 2023) the Court of \nAppeals resolved the dispute.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nCastro hired Jana Lewis-Perez to represent him. Lewis-Perez was then \nindicted for two felony insurance fraud offenses. Castro's case \nproceeded to trial. After the jury returned its guilty verdict, it \nassessed punishment at 38 years' confinement. The trial court overruled \nCastro's motion for new trial.\n\nEFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL\n\nOn appeal, Castro argued that Lewis-Perez was unconstitutionally \nineffective because she had a conflict of interest between a fiduciary \nduty to her client to disclose her pending charges and her financial \nself-interest. According to Castro, Lewis-Perez's conduct amounted to \nfraud by nondisclosure, resulting in denial of Castro's "right to \ncounsel of his choice."\n\nA trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for new trial \nonly when no reasonable view of the record could support the trial \ncourt's ruling. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution \nguarantees in all criminal prosecutions that the accused shall have the \nright to reasonably effective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment\n also guarantees a defendant the right to "conflict-free" \nrepresentation.\n\nA defendant demonstrates a violation of his right to reasonably \neffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest if he \ncan show that:\n\nhis counsel was burdened by an actual conflict of interest; and\nthe conflict had an adverse effect on specific instances of counsel's \nperformance.\n\nAn actual conflict of interest exists if counsel is required to make a \nchoice between advancing her client's interest in a fair trial or \nadvancing other interests (perhaps counsel's own) to the detriment of \nher client's interest. A potential conflict of interest is insufficient \nto reverse a conviction.\n\nOn appeal, Castro contends that Lewis-Perez provided ineffective \nassistance of counsel because she had a conflict of interest, i.e., a \nfiduciary duty to disclose her criminal fraud indictments to Castro. In \nTexas, a fiduciary relationship exists between attorneys and clients as a\n matter of law. \n\n