In James v. State, 763 S.W.2d 776, 778-79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), two brothers were accused of aggravated robbery, were represented at trial by the same counsel, and pursued a joint defensive strategy. 763 S.W.2d at 777. The brothers were convicted, and on appeal one brother claimed a conflict of interest had denied him the right to effective counsel. Id. at 776-77. The intermediate appellate court overturned the conviction on the ground that because the brothers could have chosen to accuse each other of committing the offense, their counsel was operating under a conflict of interest. See id. at 780-82. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overruled the intermediate court, holding that the mere possibility that the brothers could have chosen to accuse each other of committing the crime did not mean that an actual conflict existed. Id. at 782.