Per Curiam
Sabag appealed from a judgment convicting him of, among other things, attempted assault, resulting from an incident in which he and a codefendant approached and assaulted complainants, former partners in a locksmith business. Sabag and codefendant were represented by the same attorney throughout the proceedings and he now claimed he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel based on the dual representation as there was a conflict in the potential defenses of the two defendants. The court held an extensive Gomberg inquiry, in which Sabag, in English, informed the trial court on the record, and after discussion with counsel, that he wished counsel to continue representing him regardless of any potential conflict. Under such circumstances, the panel concluded the fact that Sabag and codefendant were represented by the same attorney at trial did not deprive Sabag of the effective assistance of trial counsel. The panel found Sabag’s claims reversal was required as he did not have a Hebrew interpreter when the court conducted the Gomberg inquiry meritless. It noted counsel did not request the interpreter, nor was there evidence Sabag was unable to understand the proceedings or communicate with counsel due to language barriers, affirming the judgment.
