State v. Padilla

OPINION

FIDEL, Judge.

We conclude in this decision that resen-tencing is required because defendant’s lawyer had a conflict of interest that adversely affected his representation of defendant at the time of sentencing.

I

Appellant Eustacio M. Padilla (defendant) was indicted on three counts of sale and transfer of a narcotic drug, all class 2 felonies. The two counts charged in cause no. 89-CR-449 concerned the sale of cocaine and heroin to an informant on August 31, 1988; the one count charged in cause no. 89-CR-452 concerned the sale of heroin to the same informant on November 18, 1987.…