EPHRATA - An appellate court denied a second appeal by Maribel Gomez, who killed her 2-year-old son "Raffy."

Gomez was convicted of homicide by abuse during a 2007 non-jury trial. Grant County Superior Court Judge John Antosz sentenced her to more than 26 years in prison for abusing her child until he died.

The Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, denied Gomez' personal restrain petition, denying the accusation that her attorney, Robert Moser, was ineffective and had a conflict of interest. The second appeal follows a 2008 decision upholding the conviction for homicide by abuse.

Gomez claimed Moser had a conflict of interest because he represented Raffy's father, and, now Gomez' husband, Jose Arechiga. Moser's appointment came after the state Department of Social and Health Services removed the two remaining children from the house following Gomez' arrest.

To prove her argument, Gomez' attorneys needed to show Moser owed, "duties to a party (or other client) whose interests are adverse to those of the defendant," according to the opinion.

"Ms. Gomez must show that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected her attorney's performance," according to the opinion. "Simply showing a theoretical division of loyalties is not enough."

Gomez claimed Moser didn't investigate if Arechiga was involved in abusing the child, according to court records.

"Ms. Gomez believes that Mr. Moser would have interviewed key witnesses to bolster her case if he did not represent Mr. Arechiga at the same time," according to the opinion. "Mr. Moser agreed to represent Ms. Gomez because he was familiar with the case following the dependency proceedings. This is not a division of loyalty."

The appellate court also pointed out Gomez and Arechiga argued no abuse occurred, according to the opinion. Gomez didn't introduce any evidence Arechiga had the opportunity to abuse the boy.

"Indeed, Mr. Arechiga was not present during the time of Rafael's death," according to the opinion. "Maria, Ms. Gomez' daughter, testified that Mr. Arechiga never even disciplined the children. Mr. Arechiga also testified favorably for Ms. Gomez at trial. There is simply no showing here of abuse by Mr. Arechiga."

Moser's involvement with the dependency hearings helped him prepare Gomez' defense, according to the opinion.

Gomez' second claim was Moser didn't have enough experience, didn't always use an interpreter, didn't prepare her to testify and didn't investigate all of the available witnesses, according to the opinion. To prove the claim, she needed to show Moser's performance was deficient enough to have "prejudiced the defendant such that there is a reasonable probability that the proceedings would have turned out differently without counsel's errors."

Gomez claimed Moser hadn't handled a felony case with a similar amount of medical records, according to the opinion.

The judges pointed out Moser graduated from law school six years prior to Gomez' case, worked for the prosecutor's office and tried criminal, commercial and tort cases, according to the opinion. Among the cases were driving under the influence trials, "in which a breath alcohol concentration technician and a toxicologist appeared as experts."

"Mr. Moser's defense of this difficult and emotionally charged case appears, from this record, to be highly competent, spirited and, for us, in the finest tradition of trial lawyers," according to the opinion.

Gomez claimed Moser didn't inform her of her right to a jury trial nor of her right not to testify, and that she didn't get the chance to explain her son's injuries, because Moser didn't provide her with an interpreter.

Gomez' niece contacted Moser about taking the case, and Gomez claimed he only hired an interpreter once, to get medical records. Moser explained the homicide by abuse charge to her through a bilingual friend she had, according to the opinion. Moser didn't remember whether he used an interpreter to discuss specific issues with Gomez.

"He does remember using friends of Ms. Gomez to interpret during several of their meetings outside of the courtroom," according to the opinion. "He also remembers using the courtroom interpreter during trial."

Appointing an interpreter during courtroom proceedings is protected by the Sixth Amendment, but the defendant's right to an interpreter to speak with her attorney outside of the courtroom is a "different matter," according to the opinion.

The appeals court pointed out Antosz discussed Gomez' decision to have a non-jury trial. Both Gomez and her attorney said they agreed.

"The court questioned Ms. Gomez directly, and she responded that she had discussed the decision with Mr. Moser and was confident in her decision," according to the opinion. "Second, Ms. Gomez offers no evidence, other than her self-serving declaration, the show that Mr. Moser failed to inform her of her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. She testified without objection."

Gomez also could have spoken to Moser about the boy's injuries before and during the trial, according to the opinion.

"Mr. Moser chose not to pursue claims that Rafael harmed himself for good reason - there was little or nothing to support the claim," according to the opinion. "Ms. Gomez fails to show that Mr. Moser's communications result in deficient performance and that she was prejudiced."

The court held Moser wasn't required to prepare Gomez emotionally to testify. He discussed, and was familiar with, what she was going to testify happened.

The appeals court rejected Gomez' claims Moser didn't investigate or call enough witnesses, according to the opinion. He called 13 of the 40 witnesses who testified at the trial.

"We make every effort to remove the effects of hindsight when assessing attorney performance," according to the opinion. "Ms. Gomez would have us do otherwise. She wants us to conclude that the case could have been tried better based on her post-conviction investigation."

Along with the medical witness Moser called during the trial, he also contacted two other experts about the boy's possible epilepsy, according to the opinion. Both declined to testify.

"He is not required to search the entire country for all available expert witnesses. Such a standard would not be reasonable tactically or financially," according to the opinion. "In sum, this is not a case where defense counsel spent only a few hours preparing for trial or made little effort to research the facts or the law. Counsel conducts the appropriate investigations to determine what defenses were available ... The evidence here is that Ms. Gomez abused this child to death."

Moser declined to comment.