Where a defendant argued that his counsel had an actual conflict of interest by accepting legal fees from a complaining witness in the underlying case, the defendant was aware that the complaining witness had hired plea counsel and continued to retain the lawyer throughout the guilty plea hearing, and he did not allege that the attorney followed the directions of the witness or had any further contact with her, so the defendant did not show prejudice since he did not allege facts that showed he would have gone to trial rather than plead guilty if the witness had not hired the attorney, and the defendant also did not show that the attorney was ineffective for failing to adequately advise him or for failing to sufficiently investigate the case.
Judgment is affirmed.
Ballard v. State (MLW No. 69640/Case No. ED103415 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Dolan, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, Heagney, J. (Timothy J. Forneris for appellant) (Christine K. Lesicko for respondent).