Opinion ID: 1831526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: testimony of susan shore

Text: Next, Gordon argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to exclude the testimony of an alleged accomplice, Susan Shore. However, as noted by the trial court, there would not have been a valid basis on which to exclude Shore's testimony, as the State has the right to call witnesses, in particular an accomplice, to testify against a defendant. See Hunt v. State, 613 So.2d 893 (Fla. 1992). Further, the record reflects that Shore was cross-examined regarding the circumstances of her plea agreement, and trial counsel emphasized her obvious self-interest in avoiding more serious punishment. We find no error in the summary denial of this claim. We also find Gordon's argument on appeal that the State engaged in continued and malicious prosecution of Susan Shore as procedurally barred. Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was presented to the lower court. Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982). As noted by the State, this claim was not raised in Gordon's motion for postconviction relief.