Opinion ID: 1699092
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Grant Evidentiary Hearing

Text: Hodges argues that the trial court erred in summarily denying an evidentiary hearing on certain of his claims. This Court has set forth the following standard for determining whether an evidentiary hearing is required for postconviction claims for relief: Under rule 3.850, a postconviction defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion and record conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief. The movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if he alleges specific facts which are not conclusively rebutted by the record and demonstrate a deficiency in performance that prejudiced the defendant. Upon review of a trial court's summary denial of postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, we must accept all allegations in the motion as true to the extent they are not conclusively rebutted by the record. Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, 516 (Fla.1999) (citations and footnote omitted). A defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the postconviction motion is legally insufficient on its face. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000). The record supports the trial court's decision to deny an evidentiary hearing on each of Hodges' following claims. Hodges contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the trial court's provision of an unconstitutional cold, calculated, and premeditated jury instruction. The substance of Hodges' claim is procedurally barred because the Court has previously addressed it and determined that the sufficiency of the cold, calculated and premeditated instruction was not preserved for review. See Hodges II, 619 So.2d at 273. The ineffective assistance of counsel portion of the claim is meritless because this Court also previously determined that error in the instruction, if any existed, was harmless and would not have affected the jury's recommendation or the judge's sentence. See id. Thus, as the trial court determined, Hodges cannot satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Therefore, summary denial of this claim was appropriate. See Gaskin, 737 So.2d at 516. Hodges also claims that comments by the prosecutor and trial court diminished the jury's sense of responsibility for the sentencing process, and merited an evidentiary hearing. This claim is not cognizable on collateral review because Hodges could have but did not raise the argument on appeal. See Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla.1995). Moreover, summary denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel portion of the claim was appropriate because the record refutes any claim of prejudice resulting from the complained-of comments. See Gaskin, 737 So.2d at 516. This Court has consistently determined that similar claims lack merit, see Cook v. State, 792 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla.2001), and the record in the instant case does not support any conclusion to the contrary. Hodges further argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing pertaining to prosecutorial misconduct emanating from the State's penalty phase closing argument. The substantive portion of this claim is procedurally barred as it was raised and rejected on direct appeal. In response to substantially the same argument as Hodges advances in the instant 3.850 appeal, this Court determined that the prosecutorial comments Hodges complained of did not constitute the type of victim impact evidence prohibited by Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529, 96 L.Ed.2d 440 (1987), as that rule stands after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). See Hodges I, 595 So.2d at 933. In reviewing Hodges' direct appeal, this Court also considered the prosecutor's comments regarding the inappropriateness of life imprisonment for Hodges, and, reaching the substance of that claim under a harmless error analysis, determined that on the circumstances of [Hodges'] case we find the argument harmless error. Hodges I, 595 So.2d at 934. Consequently, since no reversible error existed, Hodges is unable to demonstrate the prejudice requisite for a successful ineffective assistance of counsel claim, rendering summary denial of the issue appropriate. See Gaskin, 737 So.2d at 516. Those in dissent agree with Hodges' contention, concluding that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor's comments regarding life imprisonment  comments counsel should have known were improper by virtue of this Court's decision in Jackson v. State, 522 So.2d 802 (Fla.1988), rendered one year prior to Hodges' trial. See dissenting op. at 367. However, this position fails to acknowledge this Court's prior determination that the commentary upon which the dissent relies constituted harmless error, and the implication of that determination for the prejudice prong of the Strickland standard. See Hodges I, 595 So.2d at 933-34. This Court has previously examined the prosecutor's comments, as set forth in the dissenting opinion, through the prism of our decisions in Jackson, Hudson v. State, 538 So.2d 829 (Fla.1989), and Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 323 (Fla.1991). In so doing, this Court previously determined that the instant case was more analogous to Hudson, where the defendant had failed to object to similar comments deemed not to constitute reversible error, and Jackson, where the defendant had objected to comments later deemed harmless, than to Taylor, where this Court determined that similar prosecutorial comments, to which defense counsel had objected, were not harmless. See Hodges I, 595 So.2d at 933-34. There is no compelling reason to revisit that conclusion or overrule a determination of this Court entered in this case while before us in prior proceedings. Moreover, this Court's comparison of Hodges' claim to Jackson  a case in which error was preserved through contemporaneous objection  coupled with the use of the phrase harmless error, see id., belies the contention that the Court applied a fundamental error analysis to the claim. Our prior decision simply does not support the position that had Hodges' counsel objected to the prosecutor's remarks, this Court would have reversed his conviction. The dissenting opinion attempts to focus on counsel's purportedly deficient performance for failing to object to the prosecutor's closing argument. However, even a cursory review of the transcript reveals that defense counsel engaged in a strategy intended to sway the jury to return a life recommendation by distinguishing the crime committed by Hodges from more heinous first-degree murders. Trial counsel first debunked the existence of the witness elimination and CCP aggravators, and then reviewed the remaining statutory aggravators, reminding the jury after each that it did not apply in Hodges' case, and, thus, that the death penalty was not warranted. Finally, Hodges argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding whether the jury instructions employed in his case misled the jury to believe that they could not render a valid sentence if they were tied six votes to six. Again the substantive issue underlying Hodges' claim is procedurally barred because Hodges could have but did not raise the argument on appeal. See Harvey, 656 So.2d at 1256. The ineffective assistance of counsel portion of the claim lacks merit because the judge did indeed advise the jury that if six or more of them recommended life, they would have made a life recommendation. While Hodges concedes that these instructions were proper, he contends that they were rendered nugatory by previous statements giving the jury the erroneous impression that they could not return a valid sentence if the vote was tied. This Court has recently considered and rejected a substantially similar argument. See Floyd v. State, 808 So.2d 175, 185-86 (Fla.2002). Moreover, as the trial court found, any extant error was harmless because the jury returned a death recommendation by a vote of ten to two. Given that the record clearly refutes Hodges' ability to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland, summary denial was appropriate.