Craddock v. State

McMurray, Chief Judge.

Defendant appeals from his conviction of two counts of violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act (selling marijuana). Held:

1. Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s (different from present appellate counsel) simultaneous representation of the State’s informant. “The reason a conflict of interests exists in a situation in which defense counsel is simultaneously representing a witness, even though the witness is not a co-defendant at trial, is that defense counsel might not be vigorous enough in his . . .…