Opinion ID: 1795016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Issue 4Ineffective Assistance of Counsel During the Guilt Phase

Text: Schwab claims that his counsel was ineffective during the guilt phase, alleging that counsel failed to make an informed decision to advise the waiver of a jury trial, failed to move for a change of venue, and made misrepresentations to Schwab which precluded him from filing a motion to disqualify Judge Richardson. Schwab also claims that his counsel failed to ensure that all the pretrial and capital trial proceedings were transcribed for appellate review. In the order denying Schwab's postconviction motion, the trial court set forth the following in respect to these claims: CLAIM XI The eleventh claim raised by Defendant alleges he was denied an adversarial testing at the guilt-innocence phase of his capital trial. Defendant raises a number of issues that will each be addressed in turn. First, Defendant states he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to the fact that the two attorneys assigned to his case by the Office of the Public Defender were inexperienced and had never proceeded with a capital case through trial. Defendant states his representation by the Office of the Public Defender was also impaired by the fact that there were no investigators specifically trained in capital work, and no mitigation specialists. Testimony at the hearing on Defendant's motion revealed that the lead attorney at trial, Brian Onek, had been a practicing attorney for nine years, exclusively practicing in criminal defense. Prior to Defendant's trial, Mr. Onek had taken approximately seventy to one hundred felony cases to trial. Furthermore, he had previously worked on several death penalty cases, although none of those cases had gone to trial. In preparation for this case, Mr. Onek was in regular contact with Defendant who actively participated in his defense. In fact, Mr. Onek expressed his desire to the Public Defender, J.R. Russo, the need to devote his time and energy nearly exclusively to Defendant's case, and was granted that request. Mr. Onek traveled to Ohio, and assigned an investigator from his office to also travel to Ohio to investigate the case. Numerous psychiatrists and psychologists were contacted and retained to analyze Defendant's mental state and possible factors to be used as mitigating circumstances. Mr. Onek attended seminars, and read case law and literature in an attempt to further his knowledge entering into, and in trying this case. Throughout the period of time while preparing Defendant's case for trial and through the trial, Mr. Onek spoke to numerous attorneys in his office regarding this case, and also spoke to experts at seminars regarding how to proceed in this case. Mr. Onek specifically told Mr. Russo he wanted the best experts, and was given the funding to procure the experts needed to prepare Defendant's case. There is nothing in the record to indicate Mr. Onek or the Office of the Public Defender did anything but represent Defendant in a zealous, competent, and accomplished manner. As stated by Mr. Onek, the facts of the case were the facts, and he could not change them. Defendant also claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel by the inference [sic] of trial court and prosecutorial misconduct. This Court has been provided no evidence of either of those factors. Next, Defendant claims his counsel failed to investigate the possible consequences of waiving a jury trial. This claim was refuted by every witness called to testify at Defendant's hearing on this motion. Defendant also claims his counsel was ineffective by failing to request a change of venue. A presumption exists that the challenged action constitutes sound strategy on the part of the defense attorney. Courts therefore must review the reasonableness of counsel's assistance in light of the facts of the particular case at the time of counsel's conduct. Chateloin v. Singletary, 89 F.3d 749, 752 (11th Cir.1996). See also, Mills v. State[,] 684 So.2d 801 (Fla.1996). The defendant bears the burden of proving that counsel's performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that the challenged action was not sound strategy. Huynh v. King, 95 F.3d 1052, 1055 (11th Cir. 1996). As stated by each of the attorneys that testified at the hearing, the decision to proceed with a non-jury trial and therefore not request a change of venue was clearly a trial strategy. It was firmly believed that Defendant would be found guilty and receive a recommendation of the death penalty from any jury selected. There was no need to request a change of venue. The next issue posed in Defendant's post-conviction motion with regard to the failure of trial counsel to request a change of venue also supported the trial strategy on the part of trial counsel. Although specifically targeting alleged judicial bias as raised in Claim XI, Defendant's motion states, In such an atmosphere of public hostility toward Mr. Schwab, even absent overt judicial bias, it was impossible for any trier of fact not to be swayed by the extensive and sensational pretrial news coverage of this case. Again, Defendant has presented no evidence to support the finding that the trial judge was biased or that the decision not to request a change of venue was anything but sound trial strategy. Furthermore, Defendant has made no showing of prejudice as required in [ Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052]. Next, Defendant claims his trial counsel was ineffective due to the fact that a transcript of the grand jury proceeding was never requested. Defendant has presented no evidence that the transcript was not requested, and furthermore, Defendant has presented no evidence to show how he was prejudiced by the absence of the transcripts. Claim XI goes further to state that Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel by the failure to present mental health evidence showing Defendant could not have formed the specific intent required to commit these crimes. Counsel for Defendant stated that he was hoping to present such evidence. However, after Defendant had been examined by numerous mental health experts, no such evidence existed. This does not state a viable claim for relief. Claim XI is denied. State v. Schwab, No. 91-7249-CF-A at 5-8 (Fla. 18th Cir. Ct. order filed Oct. 12, 1999). We find that there is competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court's factual determinations and approve the legal conclusion that Schwab failed to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in the guilt phase of the trial. The evidence shows that Schwab's counsel made an informed tactical decision not to file a motion to disqualify Judge Richardson and to waive the jury. See Occhicone v. State, 768 So.2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000)([S]trategic 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.). As the trial judge found, counsel Onek was experienced in trying felony cases in Brevard County, having taken seventy to one hundred cases to trial. Counsel Onek drew upon this experience as well as discussing the case with numerous other lawyers in the public defender's office. Onek also attended seminars in which he spoke with experts about the case. While the record reflects that the Chief Assistant Public Defender for Brevard County in 1991, Marlene Alva, testified at the evidentiary hearing that her opinion was that the jury trial should not be waived, she understood the logic of waiving the jury in the present case. Our review of the record further demonstrates that Schwab was fully cognizant of the possible consequences of waiving the jury, not filing a motion to disqualify, and not filing a motion to change venue. Judge Richardson engaged Schwab in three different colloquies to ensure that Schwab was afforded due process in waiving his rights. In these colloquies Judge Richardson extensively explained to Schwab that he had a right to a jury trial, that he had a right to file a motion to change venue, and that he had a right to file a motion to recuse. Schwab testified at the evidentiary hearing that he had discussed the jury waiver in light of the prosecutors' affidavits with his attorneys and that he understood and answered truthfully the questions posed in the colloquies conducted by Judge Richardson. Schwab even complied with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.260 by filing a signed written waiver of a trial by jury. Therefore, the failure to seek disqualification of Judge Richardson and the waiver of the jury are not well-grounded bases for relief founded on ineffective assistance of counsel. See Occhicone, 768 So.2d at 1048. Moreover, the waiver of the right to a trial by jury renders the change of venue issue moot since Judge Richardson would have been the trial judge regardless of the venue of the trial. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.180(b) (The presiding judge from the originating court shall accompany the change of venue case....). We find Schwab's next ineffectiveness claim, that his counsel failed to prepare a complete and accurate record, to be without merit. At trial, Schwab presented Dr. Howard Bernstein, who based his opinion on the opinions of two other mental health experts which were presented through videotape. Schwab argues that because the videotaped opinions of the mental health experts Dr. Bernstein relied on were not transcribed, the record is unclear as to what portions of the videotapes Judge Richardson heard and considered. These videotapes were properly introduced into evidence at trial and are a part of this record. Schwab has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by not having the transcripts of these videotapes in the record. Thus, Schwab's claim is without merit. Schwab next claims that his trial counsel failed to ensure that the transcript of the hearing that occurred on July 3, 1991, be included in the direct appeal record. At this hearing, the State presented defense counsel and Judge Richardson with the prosecutors' affidavits concerning Judge Richardson's prior comments. At the July 3, 1991, hearing, Judge Richardson asked Schwab questions designed to ensure that Schwab knew that the failure to file a prompt motion to disqualify would constitute a waiver of a judicial bias claim based on the prosecutors' affidavits. Furthermore, as discussed, the issue of judicial bias was exhaustively dealt with in the record. Schwab does not point to and we do not find any evidence that any prejudice resulted from the alleged failure to include the transcript of such hearing in the direct appeal record. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's rejection of this ineffectiveness subclaim.