Last Thursday, the state’s highest court handed down a decision that effectively ends Gary Wright’s quest to overturn his 2009 conviction on sexual abuse and first-degree attempted rape charges.

Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote that the lower courts were right to deny Wright’s motion because his papers “failed to substantiate the allegations that there was an actual conflict of interest or that any potential conflict operated on the defense.”

Wright’s lawyer, Michael Katzer, of Slingerlands, had argued that Wright’s representation in the rape case was compromised because one of his lawyers, James Long, had also represented the Albany County district attorney, David Soares.

In July 2008, Wright had been charged with attempting to rape a neighbor in Berne. He was first represented by Thomas Spargo, a former Berne town judge who was removed as a New York State Supreme Court justice in 2006; in August 2009, Spargo was convicted of attempted extortion and attempted soliciting of a bribe.

In February 2009, Wright replaced Spargo with Long. Wright fired Long two months before his trial and was ultimately defended in Albany County Court by Terence Kindlon in November 2009, and was convicted. Wright was sentenced to seven years; his conviction was affirmed in 2011.

The Court of Appeals hears cases that set legal precedent. The middle-level court in the state’s three-tired system, the Appellate Division, had said that Wright had failed to show the existence of an actual conflict of interest. Wright had argued that Long had a conflict because he was representing both Wright and Soares whose office was prosecuting him.

Wright had filed a motion under New York Criminal Procedure Law to void the judgment. He offered evidence that, in October 2008, Long sent a letter to the Albany County Board of Elections on behalf of Soares’s re-election campaign because Soares’s name had been left off the absentee ballots for the Independence Party line. Wright also submitted evidence that Long represented Soares in a professional misconduct proceeding in April 2011 and later represented Soares in several personal matters.

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Horn responded in an affidavit that Long’s letter to the Board of Elections was sent about four months before Wright retained Long; Horn said that Long did not represent Soares at anytime during the period Long was defending Wright.

During oral arguments before the Court of Appeals on May 4, Katzer described talking to Wright in jail, “in a grim visiting room,” and telling him Soares was represented by Long. “His jaw dropped…Even though he was wearing a jumpsuit, he had a right to be shocked.” The district attorney, he had said earlier, is “the guy that’s trying to put you in jail.”

“There was no actual conflict,” Horn told the judges on May 4.

Katzer also told the judges that Long had done inadequate preparation or investigation of the case. Long had obtained an offer to resolve the case with a misdemeanor plea that Wright had rejected.

“Two plea offers were made for straight probation,” said Katzer. “Mr. Wright rejected it because he was innocent.” He said that Long was not fighting “tooth and nail” for his client.

“How’d that work out for him?” came the question from the bench.

“Not well,” conceded Katzer.

“We have distinguished between actual and potential conflicts of interest,” DiFiore wrote in last week’s decision, “observing that reversal of a defendant’s conviction would be required where there is even a significant possibility of an actual conflict.”

The decision goes on, “A potential conflict may exist where the conflicting representations are successive, rather than simultaneous….Here, defendant’s actual conflict claim consists of unsubstantiated and conclusory allegations of simultaneous representation.

“He relies on a letter Long wrote on behalf of Soares’s campaign four months before Long first represented defendant, and Long’s representation of Soares on various personal matters years after Long’s representation of defendant had ceased. Beyond mere supposition, there is no factual support for the conclusion that Long’s representation of Soares’ reelection campaign in 2008 continued beyond its apparent scope, or that it overlapped with his 2009 representation of defendant.”

The decision concludes, “In sum, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion without a hearing.”