Opinion ID: 2544290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Adequately Voir Dire

Text: Kilgore next claims that trial counsel's questions during voir dire with regard to issues of race and homosexuality were insufficient. Specifically, Kilgore argues that trial counsel failed to (1) request individual voir dire on the issues of homosexuality or race; (2) effectively inquire into issues of bias concerning homosexuality or race; (3) elicit meaningful responses indicative of prejudice; and (4) request additional peremptory challenges. To support these contentions Kilgore provides statements from eight of the twelve selected jurors that are indicative of anti-homosexual sentiment. The postconviction court granted an evidentiary hearing on these issues, but in its final order noted that trial counsel testified that in his judgment it was not necessary to conduct individual voir dire on homosexuality and felt comfortable with the jurors' responses with regard to this subject. Further, the postconviction court noted that trial counsel testified that he did not see the case as one of race and decided that he did not need to unnecessarily highlight racial issues. In denying relief, the court found that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to request individual voir dire or further inquire into issues of homosexuality or race. The postconviction court further found that Kilgore failed to show that counsel performed deficiently pursuant to Strickland or that there was prejudice. The postconviction court found the testimony of trial counsel, that he chose not to pursue certain biases during voir dire for strategic purposes, to be credible. As a matter of law, the trial court is correct in that strategic decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if alternative courses have been considered and rejected and counsel's decision was reasonable under the norms of professional conduct. Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048. The trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence. Accordingly, relief is not warranted for this claim.