BOBBY RAY YATES, APPELLANT,
v.
C. C. PEYTON, SUPERINTENDENT, VIRGINIA STATE PENITENTIARY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that there was no actual conflict of interest or unfairness warranting retroactive application of a per se rule.
A Virginia prisoner was convicted and assigned the Commonwealth's Attorney of an adjoining county as counsel. The prisoner appealed, alleging a confli…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Per Se Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This Virginia prisoner was tried and ■convicted in Cumberland County, in which we are told there are only two practicing attorneys, one of whom is the ■Commonwealth’s Attorney and the other a part-time judge of an inferior court. The Trial Judge assigned the Commonwealth’s Attorney of adjoining Powhatan County to represent Yates, and the suggestion of conflicting interest is the primary ground of this appeal.
Yates, of course, was tried before the ■decision of Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals in Yates v. Peyton, 207 Va. 91, 147 S.E. 2d 767 (1966), and before our decision in Goodson v. Peyton, 4 Cir., 351 E.2d 905. There was at that time no proscription of the practice.
Our examination of the record discloses no actual conflict of interest and no unfairness warranting a retroactive application of the per se rule of Goodson v. Peyton. See Yates v. Peyton, 207 Va. 91,147 S.E. 2d 767 (1966). There was no other deprivation of any fundamental right.
Denial of the writ of habeas corpus is affirmed.
Affirmed.