Aaron Coleman v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 02/10/2012
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012
_________________________
CR-10-0421
_________________________
Aaron Coleman
v.
State of Alabama
Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court –- Elba Division
(CC-10-76 and CC-10-77)
On Return to Remand
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Aaron Coleman, was convicted of two counts
of the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance and was
sentenced to concurrent terms of five years in prison.
The
CR-10-0421
sentences were split, and he was ordered to serve six months
in prison followed by five years of supervised probation.
Coleman appealed to this Court.
We remanded the case for the
circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing and to make
findings of fact as to whether there was an actual conflict of
interest in defense counsel's representing both Coleman and
the confidential informant who testified against him.
See
Coleman v. State, [Ms. CR-10-0421, September 30, 2011] ___ So.
3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). The circuit court has complied
with our directions and has submitted its findings to this
Court.
The circuit court stated the following:
"(1) At the time of the trial of the defendant,
trial counsel represented both the defendant and the
prosecution's
chief
witness,
a
confidential
informant named [F.C.].
"(2)
During
his
representation
of
the
confidential informant, trial counsel learned
privileged information that later became relevant
during the trial of the defendant but could not be
disclosed by trial counsel without violating the
attorney client privilege.
"(3) Trial counsel's knowledge of the privileged
information materially limited his ability to
perform his duties and vigorously represent the
defendant for fear of actually divulging the
privileged information and committing professional
misconduct.
2
CR-10-0421
"(4) The defendant was denied effective
assistance of counsel by trial counsel's inability
to fully cross examine the confidential informant."
(Return to remand, R. 3-4.)
We agree with the circuit court that Coleman established
an actual conflict of interest by his counsel's simultaneous
representation of both Coleman and the confidential informant
who was the chief prosecution witness against Coleman.
Based
on the cases cited in our main opinion, Molton v. State, 651
So. 2d 663 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994), and
Pinkerton v. State,
395 So. 2d 1080 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980), Coleman is entitled to
a new trial with an attorney who is free from any conflict of
interest.
Accordingly, Coleman's convictions for two counts of the
unlawful distribution of a controlled substance are due to be
reversed and this case is remanded to the Coffee Circuit Court
for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Welch, Kellum, Burke, and Joiner, JJ., concur.
Windom, P.J., adheres to original dissent.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.