In Lomax v. State, the Supreme Court granted PCR relief in a conflict of interest case. Lomax and her husband, Noah, pled guilty to a variety of drug offenses. Noah was sentenced to 3 years and Lomax received 25 years. Lomax argued that her defense lawyer, who also represented her husband, was ineffectual because of a conflict of interest. She said the lawyer spent more time preparing Noah's case and argued more for a lenient sentence for him.
The trial lawyer testified that she did not favor one client over the other but did spend more time working on the husband's case because she hoped to keep him from jail because he faced far fewer charges.
The Court held that "A review of the plea proceeding also reveals that plea counsel argued for leniency on behalf of husband by comparing his more limited involvement in the crimes to that of petitioner." "We believe plea counsel’s approach essentially pitted husband against Petitioner, which was clearly detrimental to petitioner’s interests."