When counsel alerts the trial court to a conflict of interest not involving multiple representation, and the trial court fails to resolve the conflict, is the defendant entitled to relief under the Sullivan standard upon a showing that the representation was adversely affected by the conflict, or must the defendant show Strickland prejudice?

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Woodley was tried non-capitally for first-degree murder. His trial began on January 12, 2021, in the midst of a surge in the Covid-19 pandemic. Mr. Woodley’s counsel moved to continue the trial, explaining, inter alia, that her personal interest in avoiding the risk of infection was in conflict with Mr. Woodley’s interest in a fair trial with effective counsel. Counsel told the trial court that she was, at the time, emotionally and mentally unable to proceed as counsel for the defendant due to her concerns about becoming infected. In denying the motion to continue, the trial court acknowledged but did not resolve the conflict raised by counsel. On appeal, Mr. Woodley argued he was entitled to relief under the Cuyler v. Sullivan standard. The State argued that because the conflict did not arise from multiple representation, the issue was governed by Strickland v. Washington, and Mr. Woodley was not able to show Strickland prejudice. The North Carolina Court of Appeals applied Strickland and denied relief. Against this background, the question presented for review, a question this Court left open in Mickens v. Taylor, is: When counsel alerts the trial court to a conflict of interest not involving multiple representation, and the trial court fails to resolve the conflict, is the defendant entitled to relief under the Sullivan standard upon a showing that the representation was adversely affected by the conflict, or must the defendant show Strickland prejudice? i INDEX CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED.