Opinion ID: 2757661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ineffectiveness Regarding Blake’s Testimony

Text: - 38 - Blake contends that the postconviction court erred by denying Blake’s claim that trial counsel erred by insufficiently preparing Blake to testify. Blake complains that trial counsel erred by allowing Blake to testify that: (1) at the time of the Patel shooting, Blake “had previous warrants for violation of probation and I was running,” (2) he stole a car and that he made his living stealing cars; and (3) after the shooting, Blake went to see a friend with whom he intended to “make fake checks and bust them.” Blake also asserts that trial counsel should have objected when during closing arguments, the prosecutor replayed the videotape of Blake’s statement to law enforcement officers. Finally, Blake asserts that trial counsel erred by calling Blake to testify because Blake became agitated during cross-examination, which allowed the State to paint Blake in a negative light. As for the first part of this claim, the record demonstrates that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to allow the jury to hear evidence of Blake’s nonviolent criminal activity. During his opening statement, Blake’s counsel argued to the jury that “Harold Blake is not guilty of the charges he’s charged with in total.” During closing arguments, defense counsel elaborated on this theme, arguing: “Mr. Blake is not guilty of murder. He’s not guilty of attempted robbery while using a firearm. He’s guilty of what he told you he was, and that is grand theft auto.” This theme was repeated throughout the closing arguments. Additionally, defense counsel addressed Blake’s nine felony convictions, stating: - 39 - “You can have multiple convictions from a single incident or several incidents. That doesn’t mean you’re guilty of first-degree murder, period. It doesn’t mean you’re a murderer. It can mean you’re a thief. It can mean all kinds of things. It doesn’t mean you’re a murderer.” This defense theory was reasonable. In Atwater v. State, 788 So. 2d 223, 230-31 (Fla. 2001), this Court explained that sometimes a “concession of guilt to some of the prosecutor’s claims is good trial strategy and within defense counsel’s discretion in order to gain credibility and acceptance of the jury” and concluded that in Atwater’s case, concession of second-degree murder was a reasonable attempt to “maintain credibility” in the face of “overwhelming evidence” that Atwater was responsible for the homicide. Similarly, in Kormondy v. State, 983 So. 2d 418, 431 (Fla. 2007), this Court concluded that trial counsel’s decision to concede the defendant’s guilt to robbery and burglary “was a reasonable tactical decision” where the “record demonstrate[d] that Kormondy had continually admitted his participation in the burglary and robbery.” In this case, Blake’s fingerprint was on the stolen car and the State presented evidence establishing that Blake’s shoes contained glass fragments that were consistent with the broken glass from the stolen vehicle. Accordingly, it was reasonable for defense counsel to attempt to maintain credibility with the jury by conceding that Blake stole the car used in the attempted robbery. - 40 - Blake also appears to assert that trial counsel erred by calling Blake to testify because Blake became agitated during cross-examination and stated that he could not recall the details of his recorded statement—which allowed the State to replay the videotaped statement. This ineffective assistance of counsel claim is insufficiently pleaded and unproven. Blake did not allege what specific actions trial counsel could have taken to help Blake control his temper or more clearly remember the details of his videotaped statement, which Blake had viewed just days before in the courtroom. 5. Ineffectiveness Regarding Green’s Culpability Blake argues that trial counsel was ineffective for not introducing evidence—some of which was introduced in Green’s trial—that tended to prove that Green participated in planning the robbery, exited the car, approached the store with the intent to rob Patel, and possessed the 9 mm handgun after the shooting. The postconviction court did not err in denying this claim. First, Blake argues that trial counsel should have called Angela Parker as a defense witness. At Green’s trial, Parker testified that on August 12, 2002, she heard Green state that the law enforcement officers should not be conducting a homicide investigation because “the man couldn’t be dead, because it didn’t look like the man was shot anywhere but in the arm.” Blake contends that this statement indicates that Green must have been the shooter because he was able to - 41 - see Patel’s injury. Blake thus asserts that if Green were unavailable to testify at Blake’s trial, Parker’s recitation of Green’s statement would be admissible as a statement against interest, § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005), and that if Green were available, Parker’s testimony could be admitted to impeach Green. Blake’s argument is conclusory and without merit. Under section 90.804(2)(c), in order to introduce a “statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused,” the offering party must establish “corroborating circumstances” to show “the trustworthiness of the statement.” Blake does not address whether there were corroborating circumstances regarding Green’s alleged statement to Parker. In addition, given that Green admitted being in the car at the time of the shooting, Blake has not proven that the statement would expose Green to criminal liability. Blake has not proven that a person who remained in the car could not see Patel’s injury. Furthermore, if the defense established Green’s unavailability for purposes of introducing Green’s out-of-court statements, the State could respond by introducing Green’s 2002 grand jury testimony under section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), the former testimony hearsay exception. Green’s grand jury testimony would be harmful to Blake. At that proceeding, Green testified that he was riding in a stolen vehicle with Blake and a friend of Blake’s on the morning of August 12, 2002. The group stopped at an apartment complex near the - 42 - convenience store, and Green knew that the purpose of the stop was for Blake to “[s]cope it out” and that Blake and his friend intended to later rob the store. Green testified that when the group returned to the convenience store, Blake alone exited the car and went to the store entrance. Green stated that he did not realize Blake was going to commit the robbery until the moment Blake shot Patel. “Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to present evidence that would open the door to damaging cross-examination and rebuttal evidence that would counter any value that might be gained from the evidence.” Johnson, 921 So. 2d at 501. Similarly, even if Green were available to testify, it was reasonable for trial counsel to not call Green as a defense witness. Blake has not shown that the statement is actually impeaching. The statement does not necessarily contradict Green’s testimony that he was in the car at the time of the shooting. And again, testimony from Green would have been more harmful than helpful. While Green recanted his testimony in 2011, at his own first-degree murder trial in 2004, which was just a few months before Blake’s trial, Green testified that on the morning of August 12, 2002, Blake discussed committing a robbery and casing the convenience store. Green testified that he did not get out of the car when the group arrived at the convenience store and that Blake—who “didn’t have no help” from anyone else—shot Patel. Blake has not presented any reason to believe that if - 43 - Green had been called at Blake’s trial, Green would not have testified as he did in 2004. Second, Blake argues that trial counsel should have questioned Demetrius about a portion of his testimony from Green’s 2004 trial. In that trial, Demetrius stated that Green announced that he planned to commit the robbery and to rush Patel at the door. Again, trial counsel acted reasonably because Demetrius’ report of Green’s statements, if admitted as a statement against interest or to impeach Demetrius or Green, would be more harmful than helpful. At Green’s trial, Demetrius testified that Green said that he “and Mr. Blake had different plans. Like, he—he wanted to, I guess, rush him when he walked up to the door, and Blake wanted to rush him before he got to the door.” This evidence would not support the defense’s theory that Blake did not intend to attempt a robbery. Third, Blake contends that trial counsel should have investigated Terrell Smith and Melburn Thomas, who told law enforcement officers that Green was in possession of the 9 mm handgun after the crimes. Trial counsel did not err. Such evidence would not exculpate Blake or further implicate Green. Smith testified at the evidentiary hearing that he saw Green throw the 9 mm handgun into a lake. As for Thomas, Blake relies on a report documenting that Thomas told Detective Raczynski that Thomas “saw Richard Green the day after the murder and Green was worried and told him that [a third party named] - 44 - Lampley was supposed to get rid of the 9 mm when Blake gave it to him but he didn’t” so Green retrieved the gun from Lampley. At Blake’s trial, Demetrius testified that Green threw the 9 mm handgun into a lake. As a result, Smith’s testimony would not have changed the presentation of evidence on that issue. Fourth, Blake contends that trial counsel should have investigated Travell, who was dating Teresa after the Patel shooting, during the same period that she was dating Green. At the evidentiary hearing, Travell testified that Teresa confided in him that Green shot Patel. Blake does not, however, offer any explanation for why trial counsel should have known to investigate whether Travell had such information. Fifth, defense postconviction exhibit 24 is a report signed by Detective Ericka Ashworth of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and signed August 16, 2002. Based on this report, Blake asserts that trial counsel should have investigated three men who were mentioned in the report: Hayward Summerall, Tyrone Summerall, and Taron Smith. Blake contends that each could have implicated Green in the Patel shooting. Blake did not call any of these men at the postconviction hearing. As a result, all that is known about their knowledge of the crime is what is recorded in Detective Ashworth’s report. The report indicated that: (1) Hayward stated that he had heard from “Taron” that Hayward’s cousin Green was “involved with this mess” and that Green and Blake were friends; (2) Tyrone stated that he - 45 - had heard that his cousin Green may have been involved in the murder and Green and Blake hung out together; and (3) another detective made contact with Taron. Because Blake has not shown that any of these men could have supported Blake’s defense that Green was the shooter and Blake was unaware of the robbery plan, Blake has not shown that any failure by trial counsel to investigate Hayward, Tyrone, or Taron was unreasonable. Blake also argues in this portion of his appellate brief that the State violated his right to due process by using inconsistent theories in his trial and in Green’s trial. Green was tried first for the killing of Patel. On December 3, 2004, Green was convicted of first-degree murder, attempted robbery with a firearm, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. Blake, in turn, was convicted on February 25, 2005, and filed his notice of appeal on June 14, 2005. Given the order of the trials, Blake could have litigated his claim asserting inconsistent theories on direct appeal, and thus, the claim is procedurally barred. See Douglas v. State, 141 So. 3d 107, 127 (Fla. 2012) (“[H]e is procedurally barred from raising these substantive claims because he could and should have raised them on direct appeal, but he failed to do so.”). 6. Ineffectiveness Regarding the Prosecutor’s Comments - 46 - Blake next contends that his trial counsel erred by failing to object to comments made by the prosecutor. The postconviction court correctly concluded that Blake did not prove deficiency. First, Blake argues that trial counsel should have objected when, during cross-examination, the prosecutor inquired about Blake’s business of “stealing property and selling it to Kay-Kay.” This question was not improper because defense counsel had opened the door to the topic during direct examination. Defense counsel had elicited testimony from Blake that about two days prior to the Patel shooting, Blake had stolen some radios and pressure washers for Kay-Kay. See, e.g., Capehart v. State, 583 So. 2d 1009, 1013 (Fla. 1991) (“We find no merit to Capehart’s argument that the trial court erred in permitting the state’s fingerprint expert to testify that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed his conclusions because the record shows that defense counsel ‘opened the door’ during cross-examination.”). Second, Blake contends that his trial counsel should have objected during the following exchange between the prosecutor and Blake. Q Mr. Blake, when the detectives were speaking with you, did you start to cry? A Yeah, when I get real mad, I cry. Q You weren’t crying because you felt bad about what happened to Mr. Patel? A I feel bad what happened to him now. Q Is that the reason that you were crying? A At the time? - 47 - Q Yeah. A No. Q Is the only reason you were crying with the detectives is because you were angry? A Because I was angry and they was harassing me. Ain’t give me no time to think. Ain’t give me no room to breathe. Again, trial counsel cannot be considered ineffective for not objecting to the above questions because the defense opened the door to the issue of Blake’s emotional state at the time of his recorded statement. On direct, Blake repeatedly testified that he confessed to the crime because he was pressured into doing so by the detectives. Third, Blake asserts that trial counsel should have objected when the prosecutor argued that the law enforcement officers who arrested Blake had to be “extremely cautious” and that Detective Giampavolo of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office wore a “bulletproof” vest because “[s]omeone had been killed by gunfire” in the crime for which Blake was being arrested. Blake does not explain on what basis trial counsel should have objected to this argument. The prosecutor’s characterizations of the offense—that it involved a shooting—and of Blake’s arrest were reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial. Specifically, Linda Raczynski, a crime scene technician for the Polk County Sheriff’s Office, testified that during the autopsy of Patel’s body, the doctor removed a bullet from Patel’s chest, and Detective Giampavolo testified that he wore a bulletproof vest when arresting Blake. Accordingly, Blake has not shown that the prosecutor’s - 48 - argument was objectionable. See Bertolotti v. State, 476 So. 2d 130, 134 (Fla. 1985) (“The proper exercise of closing argument is to review the evidence and to explicate those inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence.”). Fourth, Blake contends that trial counsel should have objected when the prosecutor commented on Blake’s demeanor on the stand, suggesting to the jury that Blake’s recorded statement could not have been coerced because Blake “is incapable, incapable, of being told what to do.” Once again, Blake does not explain on what basis he believes counsel should have objected. Furthermore, this Court has previously concluded that no error occurred when, in arguing against a defendant’s claim that his statement was involuntary, a prosecutor compared the defendant’s “demeanor during his interrogation” to his “demeanor as he appeared before [the jury] at the trial.” Harris v. State, 438 So. 2d 787, 795 (Fla. 1983). “[T]rial counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to object to arguments that are proper.” Rogers v. State, 957 So. 2d 538, 549 (Fla. 2007). Fifth, Blake contends that trial counsel should have objected when the prosecutor ridiculed Blake’s emotional state during his statement to law enforcement. During closing argument, after describing Blake’s combative attitude on the witness stand, the prosecutor argued: And then all of a sudden the tape comes on and he’s crying, he’s bending down, he’s demonstrating that he’s, that he’s—almost a pitiful figure on the tape. Almost a pitiful figure when he represents - 49 - to you that I’m only doing this because I want to put an end to this process. What I would suggest to you, that what you see on that tape is Mr. Blake coming to grips with a situation that he finds himself in, that he knows he’s been caught, he’s made admissions to his involvement in the crime. He’s hopeful that the officers will buy into this accident theory that he’s telling them about. While a prosecutor may “not ridicule or otherwise improperly attack the defense’s theory of the case,” a prosecutor is permitted to suggest to the jury that “based on the evidence of the case, they should question the plausibility of the defense’s theory.” Valentine v. State, 98 So. 3d 44, 55, 56 (Fla. 2012). Here, Blake put his emotional condition during his recorded statement at issue by asserting that he was coerced into confessing to the shooting, and the prosecutor questioned the plausibility of Blake’s defense but does not ridicule Blake’s display of emotion. Sixth, Blake argues that trial counsel should have objected when, during closing arguments, the prosecutor replayed the videotape of Blake’s statement. Blake does not explain on what basis trial counsel could have objected to the State reviewing the evidence admitted at trial. See McCullum v. State, 488 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (“[T]he trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecuting attorney . . . to play the defendant’s tape recorded confession to the jury during the rebuttal portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument where the recording itself had been admitted as evidence . . . and the - 50 - replaying of it . . . was an appropriate response to the defense attorney’s closing argument.”). Seventh, Blake argues that trial counsel should have objected to a misleading statement in the prosecutor’s closing argument. Blake asserts that the prosecutor incorrectly stated that Blake’s assertion during his videotaped statement that Patel had something in his hand, matched the surveillance video. Blake contends that the video actually showed that Patel put down a spray bottle that he was holding before he turned toward the door. The prosecutor argued: Mr. Blake makes references during the discussion, well, I swear to God that that’s the truth. He gets up and he demonstrates to Detective Giampavolo how it happened and that he said [Patel] had something in his hand. Do you know what, he did have—Mr. Patel did have something in this hand. He had that kind of spray container in his hand that he had been using to prepare for the day’s work in the store. The prosecutor’s argument did not expressly discuss the timing of when Blake claimed that Patel was holding an object, nor did he indicate that Patel continued to have the spray container in his hand when Blake shot at Patel. Blake has not shown that an objection on that basis would likely have been granted. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless objection. Darling v. State, 966 So. 2d 366, 384 (Fla. 2007). 7. Other Alleged Errors by Trial Counsel - 51 - Blake argues that trial counsel erred by not sufficiently cross-examining witness Steverson and by not arguing that Blake could not have been the shooter because he did not match Steverson’s description of the likely perpetrator. This claim is refuted by the record. Steverson testified that on the morning of August 12, 2002, he saw a man who had braids exit a car near the convenience store and that after hearing gunshots, he saw a man return to the car. Blake contends that because Blake was bald and Green had braids, defense counsel erred by not emphasizing that the man who Steverson saw return to the car after the gunshots was the same man with the same braids. Trial counsel cross-examined Steverson about the perpetrator’s hair and then elicited from Demetrius that in August 2002, Blake was bald but that Green and Key had dreadlocks. Trial counsel then raised this discrepancy during closing argument, stating: But I would suggest to you, I would submit to you, that a shining bald [head] like Mr. Blake even in the darkness with the street light that was there, with the lights of the business . . . there would have been a reflection to indicate, to see it. It would have been very clear whether or not he had hair. Right? But we have two witnesses, oh, yeah, I saw hair. Given this record, Blake has not shown that trial counsel failed to argue that the descriptions of the perpetrator were inconsistent with Blake’s appearance. Blake asserts that his trial counsel should have interviewed Kevie Hall. Blake contends that according to Detective Raczynski’s September 7, 2002, report, Hall stated that on August 12, 2002, he heard Green and Key discussing - 52 - committing a robbery but that Blake was not present, which would support the defense’s argument that Blake did not have an intent to commit robbery. Detective Raczynski’s report does not actually address whether or not Hall identified Blake as being present at Demetrius’ house during the planning of the robbery, and Hall was not called at the evidentiary hearing to elaborate on his statement. Because Blake did not establish that trial counsel failed to discover exculpatory evidence, he did not demonstrate that trial counsel’s investigation was deficient. See Jimenez, 997 So. 2d at 1065 (“[T]rial counsel was clearly not deficient for the failure to discover information that was neither exculpatory nor impeaching.”). Finally, Blake argues that trial counsel should have investigated Priscilla Hatcher because she could have “described Blake’s state of mind in the days following the crime and his statements that suggested that he had been unwillingly caught up in others’ criminal behavior.” Initial Brief of Appellant at 51, Blake v. State, No. SC12-2102 (May 29, 2013). At the evidentiary hearing, Hatcher testified that after the shooting, she asked Blake if he was “involved in anything illegal” or had committed a robbery and that he answered, “no, I promise you I didn’t, I didn’t, I didn’t.” Hatcher did not provide any other testimony about Blake’s state of mind or statements regarding the attempted robbery. Given that Hatcher could only provide a statement from Blake that contradicted his trial - 53 - testimony that he had stolen the car and was present for the attempted robbery, Blake has not shown that defense counsel failed to investigate a helpful witness. 8. Cumulative Prejudice Analysis Blake has demonstrated two areas in which his trial counsel’s performance might have been deficient. Blake has established that trial counsel could have further impeached Teresa and could have called expert witnesses to support the defense theory that Blake’s videotaped confession was unreliable. But even when the result of these alleged errors is considered cumulatively, our confidence in Blake’s conviction is not undermined. As the postconviction court’s order denying Blake’s motion to disqualify noted, “[i]t is charitable . . . to find that [Teresa’s] many sworn statements over the course of ten years have been inconsistent.” State v. Blake, No. CF02-05203A at 2 (Fla. 10th Cir. Ct. Jun. 18, 2012). Accordingly, any additional impeachment of Teresa would be immaterial. And as discussed above, testimony from a false confession expert and a mental health expert would not undermine the evidence establishing that Blake—even if not the shooter—was a principal to felony murder. As a result, Blake has not proven that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s guilt phase performance.