In Gaston v. State, 136 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2004, pet. dism'd), two codefendants were found in a hotel room with cocaine. Id. at 317-18. Either could have implicated the other, but instead they chose to be represented by one attorney and present a joint defense, primarily attacking the recovery of the cocaine evidence as the product of an illegal search. See id at 319. When this argument failed and the appellant was convicted, she asserted her counsel was operating under a conflict of interest that denied her effective assistance of counsel. Id. at 318. In her motion-for-new-trial hearing, the appellant claimed that her codefendant actually possessed the cocaine and she was merely present. Id. at 320-21. The court of appeals upheld her conviction despite this testimony, noting that the trial court was not required to take the testimony as true. Id. The court also noted that because her trial counsel did not testify at this hearing, it was possible that her counsel had informed her of the potential conflict and she may have waived it, choosing instead to pursue the joint defense. Id. at 321. Further, the court concluded that the chosen strategy advanced arguments helpful to both codefendants under the particular facts of the case, and although the strategy ultimately failed, the failure was not due to an actual conflict of interest. Id. As the court explained, "Trial counsel was making the argument with the best possible chance of success in asking the jury to assess minimal punishments based on the lack of aggravating circumstances surrounding the present offense. One may disagree with that strategy, but there is no conflict of interest in the strategy at all." Id.